So then it's the game of testing reading skills. Again, not what I'm here for.
Give me whatever relevant setup I need for approaching the upcoming adventure, as concisely as possible, and I'd be happy. I'm here to use cool powers in a fast-paced action game to the best of my ability to kill monsters, creatively if possible, and advance my characters power. That's the sort of thing computer games are good at doing. I play tabletop RPGs for story and roleplaying; I don't personally see much point playing a pale imitation here.
I can respect your opinion though I can't condone it. However you have to understand that what differentiates this game from others is the fact it is D&D and gives you a possibility to share your version of a D&D story with others. So opening up a D&D game and then foundry, and then expecting each mission to state specifically that they have story and dialog and not just combat is not something justified - it should be other way round.
Also you have to understand that those authors who makes mission are not slaving away for you but they are making those quests for themselves. They are not getting anything in return but happiness - they just want to tell stories in their own way. What you think matters little for them, except for feedback from like minded people. When a person specifically plays or not play their mission and leave one star just because one feature they want is not there even when it is clearly saying so in description - that is trolling and nothing else.
Also, on an other note, there are many run of the mill and non run of the mill MMO which lets you kill monsters in better way. What differentiates D&D is its story-telling ability in D&D-verse. Just saying you may end up disappointed and not impressed if that is what you are only looking for.
So then it's the game of testing reading skills. Again, not what I'm here for.
Give me whatever relevant setup I need for approaching the upcoming adventure, as concisely as possible, and I'd be happy. I'm here to use cool powers in a fast-paced action game to the best of my ability to kill monsters, creatively if possible, and advance my characters power. That's the sort of thing computer games are good at doing. I play tabletop RPGs for story and roleplaying; I don't personally see much point playing a pale imitation here.
I think they were trying to go for more than a "pale imitation" of the D&D system with this game. If you want to play a grey and brown FPS, XBLA was the other way. This is D&D, optimized with the action-heavy 4th ed version, but that doesn't mean there isn't any reading, roleplaying, or storytelling to be done here. The game is BASED on its lore, IMO more so than its mechanics. Look at the videos and screenshots.
Ok. Here is a design for one of my diplomatic mission. I have tried to simplify it.
You go to town >> Murder has been committed >>> accused is your firned >>>> You stop the proceeding in between >>>>>You are asked why?
Now you argue your way through a set of choices. Everytime you choose a wrong choice, the dialog resets and you have to talk to judge again - explained by the fact that judge got angry and now you have to start building your logic all over again.
If you have already investigated the crime scene, you will have a knife-evidence which will make it easier to convince the judge. However, if you don't read knife's description, you will never know there was no blood on knife and hence not know how to make logic.
If you are a thief you can lie your way out.
If you are a mage, you will have side dialogs which can help you "think" more logically (and tell users the answer without having to use brain).
~~~~
Secondly, if you observe the scene, there would be a lot of blood. The body is near the building where the entry is closed, on more investigation you can also know that it was not possible to go up the stairs. Talking with post mortem doctor you can come to know that victim did not die from crushing. Plus a few more hints.
You can use this knowledge to argue and build your case, while cross-examining victims and building up contradictions.
~~~~
To put it simply, it is a typical diplomatic mission. Now if you don't read anything, just expect it to be a linear mission to kill X mobs and collect Y items, I personally will find it too boring to even attempt. Maybe if I am having trouble with learning curve, I might try such easy to make missions to test, but obviosly not something I can present proudly.
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think they were trying to go for more than a "pale imitation" of the D&D system with this game.
I wasn't talking about Neverwinter as a whole. I was talking about the specific quest design of "reading through a dozen dialog boxes" being a pale imitation of tabletop roleplaying.
Neverwinter itself isn't a pale imitation because it isn't an imitation of tabletop D&D. It's its own game, drawing inspiration from the 4E ruleset, but designed to be an action-RPG computer game.
If you want to play a grey and brown FPS, XBLA was the other way.
What, specifically, led you believe this is what I want? I'm not seeing it in my posts.
This is D&D, optimized with the action-heavy 4th ed version, but that doesn't mean there isn't any reading, roleplaying, or storytelling to be done here.
Of course there is some of that to be done here (and I can personally attest to enjoying plenty of roleplaying and storytelling in PnP 4E). I'm not denying any of that, or saying that people shouldn't do those things, and enjoy them. All I'm saying is that I'm not particularly interested in doing much of that in a computer game, and thus would not be interested in a quest based primarily on those things.
The game is BASED on its lore, IMO more so than its mechanics. Look at the videos and screenshots.
I have. I see a game with promising mechanics. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here.
I really care very little about Neverwinter's Lore. Or, really, published campaign settings in general. And if I were to choose one to run, it would not be FR. It would Eberron or Dark Sun.
That sounds like a perfectly good outline for a session of tabletop RPG playing. I just don't see the appeal of shoehorning that into huge tree of dialog boxes in a computer game designed around action combat.
But, if it appeals to you, by all means, do it! I'm sure others will enjoy it. All I ask is that such non-conventional quests be clearly labeled as such in the description.
I think you will find gillrmn's type of quest to be the conventional type, and what you are looking for to be unconventional in this MMO. While action combat certainly seems to a big hook for the game, I don't believe that it will devolve into a hack 'n' slash type of experience. There are already many of those littering the side of the trade routes with broken axles.
That sounds like a perfectly good outline for a session of tabletop RPG playing. I just don't see the appeal of shoehorning that into huge tree of dialog boxes in a computer game designed around action combat.
But, if it appeals to you, by all means, do it! I'm sure others will enjoy it. All I ask is that such non-conventional quests be clearly labeled as such in the description.
I will not do that first of all, simply because it will break immersion unless there are specific tags from cryptic's side which are not there.
Secondly, there is nothing to tag. It is a simple quest with normal dialog options where a set of puzzles give the quest a push followed by combat when the prisoner escapes. It is a common quest. (as ordensmarschall puts it)
Lastly, as it has already been proven and shown by my previous link, even if I were to break the immersion and write any ooc comments, they are not going to be read anyways, so why bother in the first place? Better not to break immersion and keep quest nice for those who enjoy it. Why should those who want to do the quests properly suffer for those for whom quest has not been designed? I have designed my quest for a certain group of people who are precious to me and whose feedback I will listen to and enjoy discussing it with them. Why should I intentionally put in something ineffective to make the precious one suffer for the sake of unwanted ones? It doesn't makes any sense.
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think you will find gillrmn's type of quest to be the conventional type, and what you are looking for to be unconventional in this MMO. While action combat certainly seems to a big hook for the game, I don't believe that it will devolve into a hack 'n' slash type of experience. There are already many of those littering the side of the trade routes with broken axles.
Gillrmn's design goes far beyond what I've seen in any other MMO, in terms of extensive dialog navigation with heavy impact on quest progress. I would be very surprised if that ends up being the norm. If it was, they'd be talking up as a selling point in comparison to other MMOs.
I will not do that first of all, simply because it will break immersion unless there are specific tags from cryptic's side which are not there.
I'm quite positive there will be names and descriptions to go with the user generated quests. STO has them, and I don't see why Neverwinter wouldn't as well.
Secondly, there is nothing to tag. It is a simple quest with normal dialog options where a set of puzzles give the quest a push followed by combat when the prisoner escapes. It is a common quest. (as ordensmarschall puts it)
It's a common quest in tabletop. It is not a common quest in MMOs. Having a single dialog box in a quest with multiple meaningfully different options is rare. A whole chain of them, all interconnected together... I've never seen such a thing ever.
Lastly, as it has already been proven and shown by my previous link, even if I were to break the immersion and write any ooc comments, they are not going to be read anyways, so why bother in the first place?
That example was of an already OOC description field in an OOC user interface. There's no "immersion" to break there.
And one review in that screen shot in that article proves nothing new; obviously, at least a few people don't read the description. This should not be a surprise. But it's entirely possible that many others did in fact read the description, and reacted accordingly.
And since when have I been talking about others, anyway? All I've made is a personal request regarding a design style I have little interest in playing, and one that I think is likely to deviate from the norm of Neverwinter's quest design. I think all such quest designs should be clear and up-front about what they're about. Whether it helps others is on them. I'm telling you that it would help me.
Better not to break immersion and keep quest nice for those who enjoy it. Why should those who want to do the quests properly suffer for those for whom quest has not been designed? I have designed my quest for a certain group of people who are precious to me and whose feedback I will listen to and enjoy discussing it with them. Why should I intentionally put in something ineffective to make the precious one suffer for the sake of unwanted ones? It doesn't makes any sense.
How the heck is a simple description, in the already OOC UI for selecting user-generated quests, where it's sitting next to obviously OOC star ratings and user reviews, in any way "immersion breaking"? I'm not asking you to compromise your vision in any way, and change your quest itself in any way to support my design preferences. Just communicate before I step in what you're going for, so I know to steer clear.
Really, you should think of it as advertisement for like-minded people that do want to play detective or whatever. After all, how will they know your quest isn't a straight-forward hack-and-slash if you don't tell anyone?
...
It's a common quest in tabletop. It is not a common quest in MMOs. Having a single dialog box in a quest with multiple meaningfully different options is rare. A whole chain of them, all interconnected together... I've never seen such a thing ever.
...
That example was of an already OOC description field in an OOC user interface. There's no "immersion" to break there.
...
How the heck is a simple description, in the already OOC UI for selecting user-generated quests, where it's sitting next to obviously OOC star ratings and user reviews, in any way "immersion breaking"? I'm not asking you to compromise your vision in any way, and change your quest itself in any way to support my design preferences. Just communicate before I step in what you're going for, so I know to steer clear.
...
First of all, the quest can easily be done by using half of STO foundry tools, so I would rather clear that first. Also such quests are rather easy and quick to make using foundry, but thinking one up is tough. More can be done, but I ould rather you have a look at STO foundry tutorial. And NW foundry is going to be an improvement over STO foundry as said in interviews and a cause of much debates on STO forums a few weeks back.
Secondly, if you have watched NW foundry videos, you should know that the description field is not OOC in NW foundry. You never have to go OOC once in whole of the process to take a job - you go to job board and jobs posted there have description which you are directly reading. It can go something like:-
"By the order of Neverember this order has been put by Guard Dinnako that any newcomer... blah bah ... A map is drawn behind this flyer. The interviews will be conducted at location marked as X."
Nothing OOC.
It is not a part of OOC UI.
Lastly, only way to do so without breaking UI maybe Author's homepage but I wonder how many will actually bother to even look at it. But if there is space there, I could describe my quest in greater detail ooc.
EDIT:
On a lighter note, let me remind you that it may be an MMO, but "THIS IS SPAR..." I mean "THIS IS D&D!!!!" That means that the RPG behind that MMO is not just for show.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I'm hoping that because this game was originally being developed as a co-op RPG and that it has some pretty awesome lore to draw on from WotC that they have dialogue intriguing enough for me to not want to buzz right past it at least the first time thru. Multiple dialogue branches with real consequences in terms of quest progression would be even cooler, but I won't be very disappointed if I don't see that.
As for the multitude of posts regarding Gil's future mod style, it is one of many authoring abilities seen in STO's Foundry, including dialog-linked clues to solving the mission If we want to go traditional PnP Mod giving hints when you explore to help solve a mystery, that's his right. Nobody has to play it and all we players ask is the author mention the mod's style if it goes this way as "role-playing" or "dialog" heavy.
... and all we players ask is the author mention the mod's style if it goes this way as "role-playing" or "dialog" heavy.
Not a justified demand unless specific tags field are required to be filled by cryptic. There are many reasons cryptic won't give the tags either.
- The users don't really know what they want unless they play it.
- There is no 'line'. Everyone has his own opinion of line of "dialog heavy" or "dialog light"
- etc etc (left for imagination)
EDIT:
Also realize that playing UGC is a privilege, not a right.
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
First of all, the quest can easily be done by using half of STO foundry tools, so I would rather clear that first. Also such quests are rather easy and quick to make using foundry, but thinking one up is tough. More can be done, but I ould rather you have a look at STO foundry tutorial. And NW foundry is going to be an improvement over STO foundry as said in interviews and a cause of much debates on STO forums a few weeks back.
I'm not doubting the ability to make such quests.
I was pointing out that they are not the norm in MMOs, outside other user generated content, of course.
Secondly, if you have watched NW foundry videos, you should know that the description field is not OOC in NW foundry. You never have to go OOC once in whole of the process to take a job - you go to job board and jobs posted there have description which you are directly reading. It can go something like:-
Nothing OOC.
It is not a part of OOC UI.
Would a simple [Roleplay Heavy] at the end of this description really be so terribly immersion breaking?
Besides I don't see how the UI can be entirely OOC, if there are ratings. And I don't see how UGC can be practical without ratings of some sort.
Not a justified demand unless specific tags field are required to be filled by cryptic. There are many reasons cryptic won't give the tags either.
- The users don't really know what they want unless they play it.
- There is no 'line'. Everyone has his own opinion of line of "dialog heavy" or "dialog light"
- etc etc (left for imagination)
There will be border cases of course. Yours is not one of them. Not by a long shot.
Look, the bottom line is your quest does not appeal to me in the slightest. If I go into a quest expecting a normal quest, and get slammed with a dozen dialog boxes that I have to carefully read and "puzzle" out to proceed, I will leave the quest, and give it a bad review for being tediously boring and wasting my time. If it's clear up front that it was going for something else, I probably wouldn't play it, and even if I did, I'd review it on the basis of what it was going for.
I really don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to get people who don't want to play your style of quest to play your quest, and doing nothing to encourage people who like roleplay-heavy quests to play your quest.
...I really don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to get people who don't want to play your style of quest to play your quest, and doing nothing to encourage people who like roleplay-heavy quests to play your quest.
I think you are mistaken.
All I am saying is I don't really care about people who don't want to play RP quest in RPG(and that one D&D), and I am not going to spoil my quest for them, or make any special accommodations for them.
The NON-RP quests are the ones which need to be marked. Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
I can respect a couple labels, like "fetchquest" or "story arc". Those two alone let you know if you need to pay attention or not. But putting everything down in the description isn't going to appeal to many of the authors.
A good story unfolds due to mitigating circumstances, whether you choose to kill or save someone or if the author chooses the path for you. But the fact is, they're not going to want to give away all the details on what to do, where, when, how, and what the turnout will be. Think of Empire Strikes Back for instance (hopefully the plot twists weren't spoiled for you when you first saw it.)
If you think you "need" to level up (which you don't really, since difficulty scales with you), it's good to know directly where to go to get that fix, too. So if in the very rare case that I decide to make some kind of exp grind or "I need an eye of newt", I'll label it as such.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I was pointing out that they are not the norm in MMOs, outside other user generated content, of course.
Would a simple [Roleplay Heavy] at the end of this description really be so terribly immersion breaking?
Besides I don't see how the UI can be entirely OOC, if there are ratings. And I don't see how UGC can be practical without ratings of some sort.
There will be border cases of course. Yours is not one of them. Not by a long shot.
Look, the bottom line is your quest does not appeal to me in the slightest. If I go into a quest expecting a normal quest, and get slammed with a dozen dialog boxes that I have to carefully read and "puzzle" out to proceed, I will leave the quest, and give it a bad review for being tediously boring and wasting my time. If it's clear up front that it was going for something else, I probably wouldn't play it, and even if I did, I'd review it on the basis of what it was going for.
I really don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to get people who don't want to play your style of quest to play your quest, and doing nothing to encourage people who like roleplay-heavy quests to play your quest.
What is considered the "norm" and what you or others consider appealing or not varies from group to group and even person to person. Just try bringing up that PvP does or does not belong in the game because it is D&D/an MMO and see the wildly differing "standards."
If however a module has a predominant amount of combat, dialog, role-playing, puzzles, etc., it is considered courteous to list it as a tag or somewhere in the description. Normally, when a option like this is in more than three encounters (or sometimes three or more,) that is considered predominant if the amounts are not lightly referenced in each encounter.
Still, please do not confuse Gil's words with "demanding this kind of topic in all modules" as he has clarified in his previous posts.
I think you are mistaken.
All I am saying is I don't really care about people who don't want to play RP quest in RPG(and that one D&D), and I am not going to spoil my quest for them, or make any special accommodations for them.
The NON-RP quests are the ones which need to be marked. Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
You're actually right, in a way. Marking it [Roleplay Heavy] would indeed be foolish.
Because what you've been describing is no more "roleplay" than hack and slash combat is. It's a "choose your own adventure" book in an electronic format. That's it. Pretending it's somehow the embodiment of the true spirit of D&D is simply absurd.
The only real roleplaying in computer games happens between players, and that tends to be more about chat features than game mechanics.
There is no such thing as true, D&D-style roleplaying between a player and the computer game itself. It doesn't happen, and has never happened, because roleplaying is non-mechanical, and computers can't do non-mechanical things. Your dialog-options-based game mechanics are no closer to roleplaying than action combat mechanics are.
You should be indicating the kind of gameplay players should expect from your quest. Everyone whose designing a quest that deviates from the normal gameplay should. I'd want someone who makes a straightforward all-combat gauntlet quest to mark it as such, just as much as I'd want you to mark your "choose your own adventure" gameplay.
It's just plain common sense, and common courtesy, to make it clear to your potential players why they'd want to play (or not play) your quests over all the other ones. Your steadfast refusal to do so helps no one.
What is considered the "norm" and what you or others consider appealing or not varies from group to group and even person to person. Just try bringing up that PvP does or does not belong in the game because it is D&D/an MMO and see the wildly differing "standards."
OK, but gil's quest is not even close to the norm in any MMO, as far as I know. There are going to be border cases. His is nowhere near being one.
If however a module has a predominant amount of combat, dialog, role-playing, puzzles, etc., it is considered courteous to list it as a tag or somewhere in the description. Normally, when a option like this is in more than three encounters (or sometimes three or more,) that is considered predominant if the amounts are not lightly referenced in each encounter.
Yes, this is what I've been asking for. Apparently it's a terrible burden and ruins immersion or something.
Still, please do not confuse Gil's words with "demanding this kind of topic in all modules" as he has clarified in his previous posts.
I have not had any confusion on that. I've never believed that's what he's been saying.
Although the recent attitude that his way is the proper way to play video game RPGs is unfortunate.
....
...
Yes, this is what I've been asking for. Apparently it's a terrible burden and ruins immersion or something.
...
Although the recent attitude that his way is the proper way to play video game RPGs is unfortunate.
First of all, that is a direct misquote for I never said a way to play was right way or any other wrong way. I only want to point out that:-
Wikipedia:-Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player online RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.
What you are saying is to tag a quest in MMORPG as a RP quest. As I said
The NON-RP quests are the ones which need to be marked. Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
By definition itself, Non-RP quests are breaking the norm. Hence by defination itself non-RP quests should be ones warning others not to play it as a RP quest in RP game.
OK, but gil's quest is not even close to the norm in any MMO, as far as I know. There are going to be border cases. His is nowhere near being one.
That is your opinion - it is not by definition (in fact the opposite) and not a fact. Stop trying to pass it as one.
Pretending it's somehow the embodiment of the true spirit of D&D is simply absurd.
I never said true spirit or something as I am not using talk undead spell right now. However, D&D by definition is a role-playing game. It is not by spirit, by by definition and structure that it is a RP game - infact, it is the granddaddy of all RP games. And that is not opinion - and I find it very strange I have to point such an obvious definition out like that...
Wikipedia-Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D[1] or DnD) is a fantasy, role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, and first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules, Inc. (TSR). The game has been published by Wizards of the Coast since 1997. It was derived from miniature wargames with a variation of the Chainmail game serving as the initial rule system.[2] D&D's publication is widely regarded as the beginning of modern role-playing games and the role-playing game industry.[3]
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
First of all, that is a direct misquote for I never said a way to play was right way or any other wrong way. I only want to point out that:-
I didn't quote you. I paraphrased you. You've argued repeatedly that your playstyle is supported by the very definition of what an RPG is. Your attitude is quite obvious that not wanting to partake in your own personally preferred definition form of "roleplaying" is not playing a D&D-based MMORPG properly.
On the other hand, I fully respect yours and every other way to play this game. I only ask for the same in return, and that you do utterly trivial things to assist me, and others, in finding the user generated quests we most want to play.
What you are saying is to tag a quest in MMORPG as a RP quest. As I said
By definition itself, Non-RP quests are breaking the norm. Hence by defination itself non-RP quests should be ones warning others not to play it as a RP quest in RP game.
Actually, as I said in my last post, upon further consideration, I do not want you to tag it as an RP quest, but not because it's redundant, but because it is false.
"Choose your own adventure" dialog box trees are in no way any more or less "roleplay" than fighting monsters. It's just a different gameplay mechanic, one that is not the norm in MMOs.
I want you to make clear in advance what gameplay mechanics your quest emphasizes, so that I can avoid game mechanics I do not enjoy (like wading through trees of dialog boxes), not whether or not it's a roleplaying quest or not. There is, in fact, no such thing as a "roleplaying quest" or "non-roleplaying quest" here. Video game quest design is tangential to roleplaying.
That is your opinion - it is not by definition (in fact the opposite) and not a fact. Stop trying to pass it as one.
"That's just your opinion" is utterly meaningless. Obviously it's an opinion. If you think my opinion is unfounded, show me why my opinion is unfounded. And to be clear, my opinion is not that it's abnormal for quests to have stories and dialog. Obviously, MMO quests are almost always framed with some sort of story. My opinion is rather that it's abnormal for completion of a quest to be dependent on careful traversal of a deep dialog tree. That specific game mechanic, not story-based quests in general.
So, facts: in all the years I've played MMOs, in all the various MMOs I've played, I have never, not once, seen a quest with anywhere near the depth of dialog tree traversal as you propose above. I have never heard of such a quest existing, outside of user generated content.
If that's not a basis for reasonable judgement about what a normal MMO quest is, I don't know what is. Perhaps you've been playing an MMO with the kind of quests you're talking about? If so, which one?
I never said true spirit or something as I am not using talk undead spell right now. However, D&D by definition is a role-playing game. It is not by spirit, by by definition and structure that it is a RP game - infact, it is the granddaddy of all RP games. And that is not opinion - and I find it very strange I have to point such an obvious definition out like that...
D&D the tabletop game is most definitely a roleplaying game. I am not denying that at all.
What I'm saying is that the roleplaying of D&D the tabletop game is fundamentally non-transferable to PvE video game content.
Video game RPGs, like this one, aren't really about roleplaying, because video games literally cannot support actual roleplaying. They're called RPGs because they use mechanics inspired by the mechanics of tabletop RPGs and have thematic similarities, but they do not actually contain anything like actual roleplaying, outside of players roleplaying with each other, which is not what you're talking about here. Your quest is no more definitively roleplaying than a hack-and-slash-fest. Any roleplaying that occurs in either case is a matter of how the player approaches the game, not how the quest is designed.
It's entirely possible to roleplay a HAMSTER fighter who kills monsters all day long. That is no more or less a legitimate form of roleplaying than roleplaying a detective. Wading through dialog box trees is just as foreign to tabletop roleplaying as action combat. Appealing to what tabletop D&D is does not support your position in any way.
I didn't quote you. I paraphrased you. You've argued repeatedly that your playstyle is supported by the very definition of what an RPG is. Your attitude is quite obvious that not wanting to partake in your own personally preferred definition form of "roleplaying" is not playing a D&D-based MMORPG properly.
Do you have a quote where I implicitly state any form of roleplaying whatsoever? Forget thread - in whole forum from my 3000+ posts find one post which says that I have ever professed any particular form of role-playing and I am ready to concur that your above argument is correct and not a Straw man fallacy.
On the other hand, I fully respect yours and every other way to play this game. I only ask for the same in return, and that you do utterly trivial things to assist me, and others, in finding the user generated quests we most want to play.
Another intentional fallacy as in the first post in your reply I had said that I respect your opinion though I can not condone it. By starting your sentence with "One the other hand..." you are trying to slip a wrong conclusion in your arguments.
Actually, as I said in my last post, upon further consideration, I do not want you to tag it as an RP quest, but not because it's redundant, but because it is false.
The point in consideration is - it is not the responsibility of RP quest to inform users in RPG game that it is RP quest. It is in fact the responsibility of non-RP quest in RPG to inform users that it is diverging from norm. If you agree with this argument then I am willing to take up your classification of what RP is. However as long as you do not concur with above, how can you argue about what is RP and what is not?
"Choose your own adventure" dialog box trees are in no way any more or less "roleplay" than fighting monsters. It's just a different gameplay mechanic, one that is not the norm in MMOs.
See above.
I want you to make clear in advance what gameplay mechanics your quest emphasizes, so that I can avoid game mechanics I do not enjoy (like wading through trees of dialog boxes), not whether or not it's a roleplaying quest or not. There is, in fact, no such thing as a "roleplaying quest" or "non-roleplaying quest" here. Video game quest design is tangential to roleplaying.
Are you stating it as a fact or opinion? If former, it is a fallacy again and I would like to inform you that such quests do exist. If latter, see below.
"That's just your opinion" is utterly meaningless. Obviously it's an opinion. If you think my opinion is unfounded, show me why my opinion is unfounded. And to be clear, my opinion is not that it's abnormal for quests to have stories and dialog. Obviously, MMO quests are almost always framed with some sort of story. My opinion is rather that it's abnormal for completion of a quest to be dependent on careful traversal of a deep dialog tree. That specific game mechanic, not story-based quests in general.
It is your opinion and you are free to form it. However you cannot pass it off as an obvious fact. What can be argued is the source which lead you to form that opinion and veracity of the source. And next, the logic which lead you to form the opinion - but I will not, cannot ever try to change it. That would be a heresay to any free discussion.
So, facts: in all the years I've played MMOs, in all the various MMOs I've played, I have never, not once, seen a quest with anywhere near the depth of dialog tree traversal as you propose above. I have never heard of such a quest existing, outside of user generated content.
Why thank you! But my humble self is unable to accept such a flattering praise. However, can I assume that your sentence in italics means that you have, in fact, heard of such a depth of quest in User Genrated Content? In that case, I would like to point it out that my quest also would be classified as UGC (unless cryptic gives me a job *nudge nudge wink wink*)
If that's not a basis for reasonable judgement about what a normal MMO quest is, I don't know what is. Perhaps you've been playing an MMO with the kind of quests you're talking about? If so, which one?
As I said before, if you are ready to concur with the statement that "burden of rsponsibility" in MMORPG lies with non-RPG quests and not RPG quests, I can then perhaps argue on what is RPG. Before that however, it is not a suitable argument to take as it will just be an argument for the sake of argument.
D&D the tabletop game is most definitely a roleplaying game. I am not denying that at all.
What I'm saying is that the roleplaying of D&D the tabletop game is fundamentally non-transferable to PvE video game content.
Video game RPGs, like this one, aren't really about roleplaying, because video games literally cannot support actual roleplaying. They're called RPGs because they use mechanics inspired by the mechanics of tabletop RPGs and have thematic similarities, but they do not actually contain anything like actual roleplaying, outside of players roleplaying with each other, which is not what you're talking about here. Your quest is no more definitively roleplaying than a hack-and-slash-fest. Any roleplaying that occurs in either case is a matter of how the player approaches the game, not how the quest is designed.
See above.
It's entirely possible to roleplay a HAMSTER fighter who kills monsters all day long. That is no more or less a legitimate form of roleplaying than roleplaying a detective. Wading through dialog box trees is just as foreign to tabletop roleplaying as action combat. Appealing to what tabletop D&D is does not support your position in any way.
See above.
As I said before, I do respect your opinions but do not concur with them. The underlying cause perhaps being (which is my assumption) you belief that a RP quest cannot be regarded as a norm in MMORPG.
Also another reason I say that non-RP quests should have the burden of responsibility informing users that it is a non-RP quest is because there is no risk of breaking any immersion.
One single line of OOC may very well be one whole sentence as breakage in immersion is how many times it has been broken rather than how much time.
It is possible to inform people that a RP quest requires certain skills or is difficult by using good language ("Only brave of heart should apply... " "No place for feeble hearted" etc.) but no way to say 'there would be a lot of talk and dialog box clicking'.
On the other hand, non-RP quests will not have that problem making it easy to 'tag' them. Not to mention that onus of being different in this game lies on non-RP quest as this is D&D:Neverwinter.
Basically in this game, non-RP quests are the green ones.
EDIT: Not to mention that saying that a RP quest in a RPG would be RP would be redundant... awwww I already said that!
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Do you have a quote where I implicitly state any form of roleplaying whatsoever? Forget thread - in whole forum from my 3000+ posts find one post which says that I have ever professed any particular form of role-playing and I am ready to concur that your above argument is correct and not a Straw man fallacy.
You have been refering to your "dialog tree" design as roleplaying this entire time, by declaring it as a roleplaying quest standing in opposition to "non-roleplaying" quests. And given that it's your design, it stands to reason that it's your preferred sort of roleplaying. I don't see how it could be any more clear than that.
Another intentional fallacy as in the first post in your reply I had said that I respect your opinion though I can not condone it. By starting your sentence with "One the other hand..." you are trying to slip a wrong conclusion in your arguments.
I don't see a distinction between respect and condone.
But if you do see a distinction, well, I fully condone, support, and encourage your preferred way of playing the game, and have no desire to get you to play in any other way, either by convincing you of anything, or by producing UGC that lulls you into a quest that features things that I enjoy that are outside the norm of MMO quests that don't fit with your playstyle.
The point in consideration is - it is not the responsibility of RP quest to inform users in RPG game that it is RP quest. It is in fact the responsibility of non-RP quest in RPG to inform users that it is diverging from norm. If you agree with this argument then I am willing to take up your classification of what RP is. However as long as you do not concur with above, how can you argue about what is RP and what is not?
And for the third time now, I'm not telling you to mark you quest as an RP quest. As far as I'm concerned, your quest is no more or less an RP quest than any other, so such a tag would be a lie.
I'm asking you to be clear about what game mechanics your quest uses and emphasizes. Not to label RP vs non-RP. "Navigate dialog trees" is clearly a different game mechanic than "kill monsters in action combat".
Are you stating it as a fact or opinion? If former, it is a fallacy again and I would like to inform you that such quests do exist. If latter, see below.
Please, where is this "roleplaying" quest in a video game? If nothing else, it would help me understand what you think "roleplaying" means in the context of video games.
Why thank you! But my humble self is unable to accept such a flattering praise. However, can I assume that your sentence in italics means that you have, in fact, heard of such a depth of quest in User Genrated Content? In that case, I would like to point it out that my quest also would be classified as UGC (unless cryptic gives me a job *nudge nudge wink wink*)
Yes, it's UGC. I'm talking about the the quests that form the "norm" of MMO quests, which are the ones that are published officially, not the ones that random users add. And UGC is clearly not the "norm" of MMOs, anyway.
So then do you agree that the specific quest design you propose (deep dialog trees) is not the norm of MMOs? You don't seem to be arguing otherwise. The whole reason I think you should label your quest is because it lies outside the normal game mechanics what a player is likely to expect from an MMO, and thus might not find it to their liking.
If Neverwinter were advertised and known as the game of deep and meaningful dialog trees, I'd want someone who produces action combat in their UGC to label their quest as such. All I'm asking is that deviation from the reasonable normal expectations of players be clearly labeled.
As I said before, if you are ready to concur with the statement that "burden of rsponsibility" in MMORPG lies with non-RPG quests and not RPG quests, I can then perhaps argue on what is RPG. Before that however, it is not a suitable argument to take as it will just be an argument for the sake of argument.
I flatly deny any distinction of RPG vs non-RPG quests, period. And I was not asking about anything of the sort. Talking about non-RPG quests vs RPG quests is entirely besides the point I'm trying to make.
I was asking, only, whether you have played MMOs where deep dialog trees, necessary to carefully read to complete quests, are the norm.
I am only arguing, here, about whether that specific gameplay mechanic is the norm in MMOs, or not. In my experience, it is not even remotely close to normal. Perhaps your experience differs.
As I said before, I do respect your opinions but do not concur with them. The underlying cause perhaps being (which is my assumption) you belief that a RP quest cannot be regarded as a norm in MMORPG.
It's more than that. I don't believe that "roleplaying quests" even exist in PvE computer games, as something somehow distinct from "non-roleplaying quests", if we take roleplaying to mean what it means in tabletop games, which is what you were trying to do by invoking tabletop D&D in support of your position.
In summary, my position:
1) I do not view your quest as being "roleplaying" any more or less than a hack and slash quest. It's just focuses on a different game mechanic, that is just as far divorced from tabletop roleplaying.
2) I do not believe that "deep dialog trees which must be carefully studied and answered correctly to finish a quest" will be the normal gameplay mechanics that people expect from Neverwinter content.
3) I believe that UGC that deviates from expected gameplay should be labeled as such, so those that don't want it can easily ignore it, and those that do want it can seek it out. This would also include, for example, quests that are just endless hordes of monsters to kill. This would also deviate from the norms of MMOs, but it's something that I might well enjoy. It would appreciate it being labeled as such. As, I assume, would you, so you could avoid it.
There's no way to know what the "normal" UGC for NWO will look like until we see it firsthand. This game may have more pnp-based players looking for a more legit and immersive experience than previous MMORPGs. Having a huge variety of options available (possibly read as 'dialog trees') might be the way to recreate what more serious pnp D&D fans have wanted all along.
On the other hand, the internet might just be full of people who want to see if it's possible to create a map that looks like a giant HAMSTER and get it published. That's probably why many MMORPGs don't let users decide their content, also. I know this is a digression from the mechanics labeling or tags thing, but my point is: UGC as a whole is simply not the "norm" for MMORPGs, so we can't really assume to know anything yet.
What the majority of quests will be - whether it's action-oriented or dialog heavy, fetchquest, grind, or narrative branching from lore - is impossible to say at this moment.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited January 2013
Alright everybody, it's been said by a couple of posters here but I need to make this absolutely positively clear.
THERE IS NO NORM
Again, what people would consider a "norm" for D&D others might not in an MMO and vice versa. This game is both and Cryptic and PWE are not saying one label has precedence over the other.
This means what YOU consider the "norm" for whatever topic (be it D&D MMO a combination or altogether different things,) is your personal opinion and is not to establish precedence on how others must or even "should" play.
Understand that opinions will vary, but if you have one or more aspects heavily dominating a published module, it is common courtesy (and I dare even add common sense to get the right types who want to play your mod and the wrong types to avoid it,) to list this. SO if your mod has NO dialog and is ALL action, it's wise to list all-action; even if minimal dialog then list minimal dialog. It's the exact same if it's a very large amount of text/talking with limited combat or no combat. If something stands out, it's best to note that. It doesn't matter whether it's done well or not (that's what the ratings are for,) but to note how to get those players who want to play the mods they are looking for, or what they are even looking for that that time.
Making assumptions your mod is the "standard one" is as asinine that only your opinion is the "right one" for things like PvP (which I am not going into detail here, and feel free to search for it and read the archived posts to the current ones to see its evolution into this MMO.)
As for the two here debating gillrmn and quorforged: please scale it back a tad. Both of you are actually both right and wrong, and are slightly escalating this out of proportion We do enjoy the debate, just not the level of the discourse and indirect accusations. Just a tiny more civil, but overall not anything serious to worry about. We just don't want the thread to be dominated by the argument. If it stays this...passionate, I will come in and ask for it to be moved to PM's.
Again, what people would consider a "norm" for D&D others might not in an MMO and vice versa. This game is both and Cryptic and PWE are not saying one label has precedence over the other.
This means what YOU consider the "norm" for whatever topic (be it D&D MMO a combination or altogether different things,) is your personal opinion and is not to establish precedence on how others must or even "should" play.
But that's not what I've meant by "norm" at all. My intent is not to pass judgement, in any way, on how others "must" or "should" play. My entire goal is for people to have as much freedom as possible to play how they please, as easily as possible. And part of that is making sure people know what to expect from the gameplay of UGC.
My use of "normal" is only meant to represent what a player of an MMO is likely to consider the normal type of quest, based on how MMO quests are generally structured, and thus features of a quest that don't need to be called out as exceptional in a quest description.
Understand that opinions will vary, but if you have one or more aspects heavily dominating a published module, it is common courtesy (and I dare even add common sense to get the right types who want to play your mod and the wrong types to avoid it,) to list this. SO if your mod has NO dialog and is ALL action, it's wise to list all-action; even if minimal dialog then list minimal dialog. It's the exact same if it's a very large amount of text/talking with limited combat or no combat. If something stands out, it's best to note that. It doesn't matter whether it's done well or not (that's what the ratings are for,) but to note how to get those players who want to play the mods they are looking for, or what they are even looking for that that time.
But for something to "stand out", there must be a norm! A "normal" quest is then a quest where nothing "stands out" that warrants being called out in a description as being exceptional.
But the semantics of "normal" aside, what you suggest above is exactly what I've been arguing for all along.
Making assumptions your mod is the "standard one" is as asinine that only your opinion is the "right one" for things like PvP (which I am not going into detail here, and feel free to search for it and read the archived posts to the current ones to see its evolution into this MMO.)
"The standard one" would be highly presumptuous, but I don't think it's presumptuous to think that one's mod fits in with the norms established by the rest of the content in the game, which is all I've ever suggested.
Again, I'm not arguing that gil's quest itself is "wrong" in any way. Just that it's not one I'm interested in, and not one I think most players of any MMO would expect a priori.
There's no way to know what the "normal" UGC for NWO will look like until we see it firsthand. This game may have more pnp-based players looking for a more legit and immersive experience than previous MMORPGs. Having a huge variety of options available (possibly read as 'dialog trees') might be the way to recreate what more serious pnp D&D fans have wanted all along.
Normal should be based on how the dev-created content operates. That's where new players will get their impressions of how the game plays, and that's what's primarily going to set peoples' expectations of what a "typical NWO quest" is, and thus what baseline any exceptions stated in quest descriptions are deviating from. Setting the baseline expectation to whatever the typical NGC involves would be hostile to anyone who is new to playing NGC, and thus is not familiar with what the prevailing community designs are.
I'm quite confident that the "typical NWO quest" will not involve dozens of dialog boxes that need to be carefully read to proceed with a quest. If they do, and it ends up being likely that players would expect such a design from NGC, then, assuming I'm still interested in playing the game, I'd certainly specify up-front that my UGC does not include such a thing. Likewise, if I make a pure arena quest with nearly endless waves of enemies, I would expect that to deviate from the norms of the game, and I would mark that as such. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't do myself for content that I myself would enjoy.
I see nearly 30,000 likes just on facebook for NWO on the sites front page. If each person gave the Foundry a shot with only one quest, I'm betting that devs focusing only on content would have a hard time keeping up with that, and as a result have a hard time keeping their "model quests" the norm (sorry, truthseeker, had to say it). I say this because I wonder how many people are going to copy and paste one of the developer's quests and just change the names before they put it up, and how many people are going to be creative and think of ways to use the Foundry in many cases for ways it wasn't even dreamed or intended for.
But I agree, it is based on the individual's preference of gameplay. I just think, by nature, most players utilizing the Foundry are going to try and break its boundaries to make something unique (which you may or may not enjoy), and many of the players that are waiting for another copy and paste dev quest are going to be hard pressed to find them.
I'm no analyst, mind you, but it's what I'm expecting to see sooner or later in NWO's lifespan.
The NON-RP quests are the ones which need to be marked. Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
I wholeheartedly agree. The non-RP quests should be marked "Action".
Recent MMOs tend to leave out the RPG part of MMORPG. It's a roleplaying game ! The genre has regretably been distorted into hack&slash, because of players' declining patience, attention span, and smart skills. Money grabbing devs have been turning the rich and intelligent MMORPG genre into a bumded down MMOhack&slash for the besotted masses. Like fine cuisine into fast food. I sincerly hope Neverwinter will return the full meaning of RPG to the MMORPG genre.
I will be making and sharing quests with rich and fun dialogs, with puzzles and riddles, the kind of which if you don't read thru, you have a good chance of failing (or wiping).
hmm... didn't really want to post again here so I will reserve my opinion to myself.
However, lastly I would like to mention that it is the "will" of the author whether or not to "tag" a quest. Others have naught to do with it nor have a say in it unless author asks for it.
The above mention will be true unless cryptic introduces some form of tagging and "guidelines" to tag a quest.
My opinion is "tagging" an RP quest is redundant, so if I am making non-RP quest, I will be tagging them as non-RP. Otherwise unless stated, my quests will be RP.
If combat is hard in RP quest, it will be so mentioned like (only veterans need to apply, as danger of life awaits...) or if any skills are required (...job will require certain discreet skills ... like that of a thief...).
And those who hate dialog, or puzzles, or traps won't get any love or warning from me.
Other authors may see it differently or if anybody wants to do something his or her way, they are welcome to try to make a quest by themselves and do it however they like.
I guess above part does clear everything up nice and crispy. Also - last thing to clear up - it is not that I hate only-combat missions - infact I play them myself sometimes - just to clear things up. So RP is not my "preferred" playing style. It is my preferred quest making style because it lets me tell my story(and because it is much difficult to make and needs advanced scripting and logic).
0
h0rseMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think you are mistaken.
Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
Then why do MMO's have servers marked "RP server?" Because the 'role playing' aspect of RPG's, is not a game mechanic - it's a human one, and it should be known to people who do or do not wish to engage in that sort of environment up front - "there's roleplaying in here!" Especially (in the case of the Foundry) since authors will try and emulate a RP atmosphere, which usually results in lengthy, descriptive dialog, and/or quests that result in carrying out tasks that don't even involve using a weapon (or spell)
Even back when I played NWN online, modules would say in the descriptions if they were roleplay heavy - hell, there was even a search filter for it.
Fiona Bauerstone - Devoted Cleric - Dragon Server
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Because the 'role playing' aspect of RPG's, is not a game mechanic - it's a human one, and it should be known to people who do or do not wish to engage in that sort of environment up front - "there's roleplaying in here!" Especially (in the case of the Foundry) since authors will try and emulate a RP atmosphere, which usually results in lengthy, descriptive dialog, and/or quests that result in carrying out tasks that don't even involve using a weapon (or spell)
Exactly. Roleplaying is what players do, not how game mechanics work. Monopoly can be roleplayed. The only reason we call D&D a "roleplaying game" is because it's mechanics were designed and intended with enabling and supporting roleplaying, but the mechanics themselves are no more or less "roleplaying" than any other game mechanics.
Deep dialog trees, and non-combat tasks are not inherently roleplaying. They're game mechanics like any other, including combat, that may or may not be roleplayed by a player. The only reason they're associated with roleplaying is because, typically, only players that enjoy roleplaying in the game are likely to enjoy those mechanics.
If I'm not roleplaying, a quest that's just running from point A to point B, with no combat or challenges in between, is tiresome and boring. If I am roleplaying, it could be the backdrop for all sorts of stories.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
But that's not what I've meant by "norm" at all. My intent is not to pass judgement, in any way, on how others "must" or "should" play.My entire goal is for people to have as much freedom as possible to play how they please, as easily as possible. And part of that is making sure people know what to expect from the gameplay of UGC.
My use of "normal" is only meant to represent what a player of an MMO is likely to consider the normal type of quest, based on how MMO quests are generally structured, and thus features of a quest that don't need to be called out as exceptional in a quest description.
But for something to "stand out", there must be a norm! A "normal" quest is then a quest where nothing "stands out" that warrants being called out in a description as being exceptional.
But the semantics of "normal" aside, what you suggest above is exactly what I've been arguing for all along.
"The standard one" would be highly presumptuous, but I don't think it's presumptuous to think that one's mod fits in with the norms established by the rest of the content in the game, which is all I've ever suggested.
Again, I'm not arguing that gil's quest itself is "wrong" in any way. Just that it's not one I'm interested in, and not one I think most players of any MMO would expect a prioriy.
Normal should be based on how the dev-created content operates. That's where new players will get their impressions of how the game plays, and that's what's primarily going to set peoples' expectations of what a "typical NWO quest" is, and thus what baseline any exceptions stated in quest descriptions are deviating from. Setting the baseline expectation to whatever the typical NGC involves would be hostile to anyone who is new to playing NGC, and thus is not familiar with what the prevailing community designs are.
I'm quite confident that the "typical NWO quest" will not involve dozens of dialog boxes that need to be carefully read to proceed with a quest. If they do, and it ends up being likely that players would expect such a design from NGC, then, assuming I'm still interested in playing the game, I'd certainly specify up-front that my UGC does not include such a thing. Likewise, if I make a pure arena quest with nearly endless waves of enemies, I would expect that to deviate from the norms of the game, and I would mark that as such. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't do myself for content that I myself would enjoy.
Our assumptions can't always be be the norm on how most players would play (even if typing it's not then implying it is.) The second mistake is only the MMO player here will decide how the content should be. To paraphrase from 300. This...is....D&D! Others may expect a large narrative like the DM would list, others would expect to be able to role play or even feel they are witnessing a story. Or not as a dungeon crawl.
More on immersion in another reply.
I see nearly 30,000 likes just on facebook for NWO on the sites front page. If each person gave the Foundry a shot with only one quest, I'm betting that devs focusing only on content would have a hard time keeping up with that, and as a result have a hard time keeping their "model quests" the norm (sorry, truthseeker, had to say it).
NORM!!!! Sorry I couldn't resist too! But good point on your whole post.
I wholeheartedly agree. The non-RP quests should be marked "Action".
Recent MMOs tend to leave out the RPG part of MMORPG. It's a roleplaying game ! The genre has regretably been distorted into hack&slash, because of players' declining patience, attention span, and smart skills. Money grabbing devs have been turning the rich and intelligent MMORPG genre into a bumded down MMOhack&slash for the besotted masses. Like fine cuisine into fast food. I sincerly hope Neverwinter will return the full meaning of RPG to the MMORPG genre.
I will be making and sharing quests with rich and fun dialogs, with puzzles and riddles, the kind of which if you don't read thru, you have a good chance of failing (or wiping).
Again, this is D&D. Just like there will be some players who only play a style in what's relating to ST based on the STO MMO, some people will expect certain things because it's D&D (more so because this comes from a game itself and not a TV show.) If that means role playing or dungeon crawl or anywhere in between could vary though.
hmm... didn't really want to post again here so I will reserve my opinion to myself.
However, lastly I would like to mention that it is the "will" of the author whether or not to "tag" a quest. Others have naught to do with it nor have a say in it unless author asks for it.
The above mention will be true unless cryptic introduces some form of tagging and "guidelines" to tag a quest.
My opinion is "tagging" an RP quest is redundant, so if I am making non-RP quest, I will be tagging them as non-RP. Otherwise unless stated, my quests will be RP.
If combat is hard in RP quest, it will be so mentioned like (only veterans need to apply, as danger of life awaits...) or if any skills are required (...job will require certain discreet skills ... like that of a thief...).
And those who hate dialog, or puzzles, or traps won't get any love or warning from me.
Other authors may see it differently or if anybody wants to do something his or her way, they are welcome to try to make a quest by themselves and do it however they like.
I guess above part does clear everything up nice and crispy. Also - last thing to clear up - it is not that I hate only-combat missions - infact I play them myself sometimes - just to clear things up. So RP is not my "preferred" playing style. It is my preferred quest making style because it lets me tell my story(and because it is much difficult to make and needs advanced scripting and logic).
So noted, it's his opinion, not how "all quests should be." But no, all D&D should NOT be by default Role-playing, as people may want to do the also classic dungeon crawl with NO role playing as iconic as the later role playing became. Chainmail the strategy game had almost zero role playing-except for listing fantasy characters that were used in the simulation-and many a classic gamer from those roots also did zero role playing and all attack simulation in D&D. Don't discount them either.
If you play a mission of his and note something should be listed and it's not, you have the right to comment on that. But don't go looking for dungeon crawl in a murder mystery either.
Exactly. Roleplaying is what players do, not how game mechanics work. Monopoly can be roleplayed. The only reason we call D&D a "roleplaying game" is because it's mechanics were designed and intended with enabling and supporting roleplaying, but the mechanics themselves are no more or less "roleplaying" than any other game mechanics.
Deep dialog trees, and non-combat tasks are not inherently roleplaying. They're game mechanics like any other, including combat, that may or may not be roleplayed by a player. The only reason they're associated with roleplaying is because, typically, only players that enjoy roleplaying in the game are likely to enjoy those mechanics.
If I'm not roleplaying, a quest that's just running from point A to point B, with no combat or challenges in between, is tiresome and boring. If I am roleplaying, it could be the backdrop for all sorts of stories.
Again, it's your opinion, but it can seem like it's suggestive "you speak for game cannon" here.
Speaking as a DM and as a player of the D&D PnP, roleplaying in the D&D game has rules suggestions and are as mechanical yet optional like a place you can go to in an MMO but don't need to go tosuch as a field when a light is shined on shows a special scene. If WoW does it, then it's MMO roleplaying mechanics since it's coded in the game according to how your quoted reasoning worked. This may or may not be true, but it's an option and should be considered a part of MMOs whether it's either coded or played out when you are talking about D&D.
Roleplaying though should always be optional.
And people who like to be immersed in the story like it too. Are you saying verbose authors only write to role players? It's a writing style. Just like the authors who write "to get to the action." I'm speaking on both a novel and Foundry level here.
Should those in Foundry who rely heavily on dialog note this? Absolutely. Even if optional, your story when placed in a group of others should be listed to help others search or not search it. I'll leave the "role playing" or "immersion" or name if should be called for another time.
Comments
I can respect your opinion though I can't condone it. However you have to understand that what differentiates this game from others is the fact it is D&D and gives you a possibility to share your version of a D&D story with others. So opening up a D&D game and then foundry, and then expecting each mission to state specifically that they have story and dialog and not just combat is not something justified - it should be other way round.
Also you have to understand that those authors who makes mission are not slaving away for you but they are making those quests for themselves. They are not getting anything in return but happiness - they just want to tell stories in their own way. What you think matters little for them, except for feedback from like minded people. When a person specifically plays or not play their mission and leave one star just because one feature they want is not there even when it is clearly saying so in description - that is trolling and nothing else.
Also, on an other note, there are many run of the mill and non run of the mill MMO which lets you kill monsters in better way. What differentiates D&D is its story-telling ability in D&D-verse. Just saying you may end up disappointed and not impressed if that is what you are only looking for.
I think they were trying to go for more than a "pale imitation" of the D&D system with this game. If you want to play a grey and brown FPS, XBLA was the other way. This is D&D, optimized with the action-heavy 4th ed version, but that doesn't mean there isn't any reading, roleplaying, or storytelling to be done here. The game is BASED on its lore, IMO more so than its mechanics. Look at the videos and screenshots.
You go to town >> Murder has been committed >>> accused is your firned >>>> You stop the proceeding in between >>>>>You are asked why?
Now you argue your way through a set of choices. Everytime you choose a wrong choice, the dialog resets and you have to talk to judge again - explained by the fact that judge got angry and now you have to start building your logic all over again.
If you have already investigated the crime scene, you will have a knife-evidence which will make it easier to convince the judge. However, if you don't read knife's description, you will never know there was no blood on knife and hence not know how to make logic.
If you are a thief you can lie your way out.
If you are a mage, you will have side dialogs which can help you "think" more logically (and tell users the answer without having to use brain).
~~~~
Secondly, if you observe the scene, there would be a lot of blood. The body is near the building where the entry is closed, on more investigation you can also know that it was not possible to go up the stairs. Talking with post mortem doctor you can come to know that victim did not die from crushing. Plus a few more hints.
You can use this knowledge to argue and build your case, while cross-examining victims and building up contradictions.
~~~~
To put it simply, it is a typical diplomatic mission. Now if you don't read anything, just expect it to be a linear mission to kill X mobs and collect Y items, I personally will find it too boring to even attempt. Maybe if I am having trouble with learning curve, I might try such easy to make missions to test, but obviosly not something I can present proudly.
I wasn't talking about Neverwinter as a whole. I was talking about the specific quest design of "reading through a dozen dialog boxes" being a pale imitation of tabletop roleplaying.
Neverwinter itself isn't a pale imitation because it isn't an imitation of tabletop D&D. It's its own game, drawing inspiration from the 4E ruleset, but designed to be an action-RPG computer game.
What, specifically, led you believe this is what I want? I'm not seeing it in my posts.
Of course there is some of that to be done here (and I can personally attest to enjoying plenty of roleplaying and storytelling in PnP 4E). I'm not denying any of that, or saying that people shouldn't do those things, and enjoy them. All I'm saying is that I'm not particularly interested in doing much of that in a computer game, and thus would not be interested in a quest based primarily on those things.
I have. I see a game with promising mechanics. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here.
I really care very little about Neverwinter's Lore. Or, really, published campaign settings in general. And if I were to choose one to run, it would not be FR. It would Eberron or Dark Sun.
@gillrmn:
That sounds like a perfectly good outline for a session of tabletop RPG playing. I just don't see the appeal of shoehorning that into huge tree of dialog boxes in a computer game designed around action combat.
But, if it appeals to you, by all means, do it! I'm sure others will enjoy it. All I ask is that such non-conventional quests be clearly labeled as such in the description.
I will not do that first of all, simply because it will break immersion unless there are specific tags from cryptic's side which are not there.
Secondly, there is nothing to tag. It is a simple quest with normal dialog options where a set of puzzles give the quest a push followed by combat when the prisoner escapes. It is a common quest. (as ordensmarschall puts it)
Lastly, as it has already been proven and shown by my previous link, even if I were to break the immersion and write any ooc comments, they are not going to be read anyways, so why bother in the first place? Better not to break immersion and keep quest nice for those who enjoy it. Why should those who want to do the quests properly suffer for those for whom quest has not been designed? I have designed my quest for a certain group of people who are precious to me and whose feedback I will listen to and enjoy discussing it with them. Why should I intentionally put in something ineffective to make the precious one suffer for the sake of unwanted ones? It doesn't makes any sense.
Gillrmn's design goes far beyond what I've seen in any other MMO, in terms of extensive dialog navigation with heavy impact on quest progress. I would be very surprised if that ends up being the norm. If it was, they'd be talking up as a selling point in comparison to other MMOs.
I'm quite positive there will be names and descriptions to go with the user generated quests. STO has them, and I don't see why Neverwinter wouldn't as well.
It's a common quest in tabletop. It is not a common quest in MMOs. Having a single dialog box in a quest with multiple meaningfully different options is rare. A whole chain of them, all interconnected together... I've never seen such a thing ever.
That example was of an already OOC description field in an OOC user interface. There's no "immersion" to break there.
And one review in that screen shot in that article proves nothing new; obviously, at least a few people don't read the description. This should not be a surprise. But it's entirely possible that many others did in fact read the description, and reacted accordingly.
And since when have I been talking about others, anyway? All I've made is a personal request regarding a design style I have little interest in playing, and one that I think is likely to deviate from the norm of Neverwinter's quest design. I think all such quest designs should be clear and up-front about what they're about. Whether it helps others is on them. I'm telling you that it would help me.
How the heck is a simple description, in the already OOC UI for selecting user-generated quests, where it's sitting next to obviously OOC star ratings and user reviews, in any way "immersion breaking"? I'm not asking you to compromise your vision in any way, and change your quest itself in any way to support my design preferences. Just communicate before I step in what you're going for, so I know to steer clear.
Really, you should think of it as advertisement for like-minded people that do want to play detective or whatever. After all, how will they know your quest isn't a straight-forward hack-and-slash if you don't tell anyone?
First of all, the quest can easily be done by using half of STO foundry tools, so I would rather clear that first. Also such quests are rather easy and quick to make using foundry, but thinking one up is tough. More can be done, but I ould rather you have a look at STO foundry tutorial. And NW foundry is going to be an improvement over STO foundry as said in interviews and a cause of much debates on STO forums a few weeks back.
Secondly, if you have watched NW foundry videos, you should know that the description field is not OOC in NW foundry. You never have to go OOC once in whole of the process to take a job - you go to job board and jobs posted there have description which you are directly reading. It can go something like:- Nothing OOC.
It is not a part of OOC UI.
Lastly, only way to do so without breaking UI maybe Author's homepage but I wonder how many will actually bother to even look at it. But if there is space there, I could describe my quest in greater detail ooc.
EDIT:
On a lighter note, let me remind you that it may be an MMO, but "THIS IS SPAR..." I mean "THIS IS D&D!!!!" That means that the RPG behind that MMO is not just for show.
It does.
Lemme go into details...
River Song
Curse you River!
As for the multitude of posts regarding Gil's future mod style, it is one of many authoring abilities seen in STO's Foundry, including dialog-linked clues to solving the mission If we want to go traditional PnP Mod giving hints when you explore to help solve a mystery, that's his right. Nobody has to play it and all we players ask is the author mention the mod's style if it goes this way as "role-playing" or "dialog" heavy.
Not a justified demand unless specific tags field are required to be filled by cryptic. There are many reasons cryptic won't give the tags either.
- The users don't really know what they want unless they play it.
- There is no 'line'. Everyone has his own opinion of line of "dialog heavy" or "dialog light"
- etc etc (left for imagination)
EDIT:
Also realize that playing UGC is a privilege, not a right.
I'm not doubting the ability to make such quests.
I was pointing out that they are not the norm in MMOs, outside other user generated content, of course.
Would a simple [Roleplay Heavy] at the end of this description really be so terribly immersion breaking?
Besides I don't see how the UI can be entirely OOC, if there are ratings. And I don't see how UGC can be practical without ratings of some sort.
There will be border cases of course. Yours is not one of them. Not by a long shot.
Look, the bottom line is your quest does not appeal to me in the slightest. If I go into a quest expecting a normal quest, and get slammed with a dozen dialog boxes that I have to carefully read and "puzzle" out to proceed, I will leave the quest, and give it a bad review for being tediously boring and wasting my time. If it's clear up front that it was going for something else, I probably wouldn't play it, and even if I did, I'd review it on the basis of what it was going for.
I really don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to get people who don't want to play your style of quest to play your quest, and doing nothing to encourage people who like roleplay-heavy quests to play your quest.
I think you are mistaken.
All I am saying is I don't really care about people who don't want to play RP quest in RPG(and that one D&D), and I am not going to spoil my quest for them, or make any special accommodations for them.
The NON-RP quests are the ones which need to be marked. Marking a quest as RP in a RPG is redundant and foolish.
A good story unfolds due to mitigating circumstances, whether you choose to kill or save someone or if the author chooses the path for you. But the fact is, they're not going to want to give away all the details on what to do, where, when, how, and what the turnout will be. Think of Empire Strikes Back for instance (hopefully the plot twists weren't spoiled for you when you first saw it.)
If you think you "need" to level up (which you don't really, since difficulty scales with you), it's good to know directly where to go to get that fix, too. So if in the very rare case that I decide to make some kind of exp grind or "I need an eye of newt", I'll label it as such.
I have been sitting in the comfy chair and forgot the question....oh right...
What is considered the "norm" and what you or others consider appealing or not varies from group to group and even person to person. Just try bringing up that PvP does or does not belong in the game because it is D&D/an MMO and see the wildly differing "standards."
If however a module has a predominant amount of combat, dialog, role-playing, puzzles, etc., it is considered courteous to list it as a tag or somewhere in the description. Normally, when a option like this is in more than three encounters (or sometimes three or more,) that is considered predominant if the amounts are not lightly referenced in each encounter.
Still, please do not confuse Gil's words with "demanding this kind of topic in all modules" as he has clarified in his previous posts.
You're actually right, in a way. Marking it [Roleplay Heavy] would indeed be foolish.
Because what you've been describing is no more "roleplay" than hack and slash combat is. It's a "choose your own adventure" book in an electronic format. That's it. Pretending it's somehow the embodiment of the true spirit of D&D is simply absurd.
The only real roleplaying in computer games happens between players, and that tends to be more about chat features than game mechanics.
There is no such thing as true, D&D-style roleplaying between a player and the computer game itself. It doesn't happen, and has never happened, because roleplaying is non-mechanical, and computers can't do non-mechanical things. Your dialog-options-based game mechanics are no closer to roleplaying than action combat mechanics are.
You should be indicating the kind of gameplay players should expect from your quest. Everyone whose designing a quest that deviates from the normal gameplay should. I'd want someone who makes a straightforward all-combat gauntlet quest to mark it as such, just as much as I'd want you to mark your "choose your own adventure" gameplay.
It's just plain common sense, and common courtesy, to make it clear to your potential players why they'd want to play (or not play) your quests over all the other ones. Your steadfast refusal to do so helps no one.
OK, but gil's quest is not even close to the norm in any MMO, as far as I know. There are going to be border cases. His is nowhere near being one.
Yes, this is what I've been asking for. Apparently it's a terrible burden and ruins immersion or something.
I have not had any confusion on that. I've never believed that's what he's been saying.
Although the recent attitude that his way is the proper way to play video game RPGs is unfortunate.
First of all, that is a direct misquote for I never said a way to play was right way or any other wrong way. I only want to point out that:-
What you are saying is to tag a quest in MMORPG as a RP quest. As I said By definition itself, Non-RP quests are breaking the norm. Hence by defination itself non-RP quests should be ones warning others not to play it as a RP quest in RP game.
That is your opinion - it is not by definition (in fact the opposite) and not a fact. Stop trying to pass it as one.
I never said true spirit or something as I am not using talk undead spell right now. However, D&D by definition is a role-playing game. It is not by spirit, by by definition and structure that it is a RP game - infact, it is the granddaddy of all RP games. And that is not opinion - and I find it very strange I have to point such an obvious definition out like that...
I didn't quote you. I paraphrased you. You've argued repeatedly that your playstyle is supported by the very definition of what an RPG is. Your attitude is quite obvious that not wanting to partake in your own personally preferred definition form of "roleplaying" is not playing a D&D-based MMORPG properly.
On the other hand, I fully respect yours and every other way to play this game. I only ask for the same in return, and that you do utterly trivial things to assist me, and others, in finding the user generated quests we most want to play.
Actually, as I said in my last post, upon further consideration, I do not want you to tag it as an RP quest, but not because it's redundant, but because it is false.
"Choose your own adventure" dialog box trees are in no way any more or less "roleplay" than fighting monsters. It's just a different gameplay mechanic, one that is not the norm in MMOs.
I want you to make clear in advance what gameplay mechanics your quest emphasizes, so that I can avoid game mechanics I do not enjoy (like wading through trees of dialog boxes), not whether or not it's a roleplaying quest or not. There is, in fact, no such thing as a "roleplaying quest" or "non-roleplaying quest" here. Video game quest design is tangential to roleplaying.
"That's just your opinion" is utterly meaningless. Obviously it's an opinion. If you think my opinion is unfounded, show me why my opinion is unfounded. And to be clear, my opinion is not that it's abnormal for quests to have stories and dialog. Obviously, MMO quests are almost always framed with some sort of story. My opinion is rather that it's abnormal for completion of a quest to be dependent on careful traversal of a deep dialog tree. That specific game mechanic, not story-based quests in general.
So, facts: in all the years I've played MMOs, in all the various MMOs I've played, I have never, not once, seen a quest with anywhere near the depth of dialog tree traversal as you propose above. I have never heard of such a quest existing, outside of user generated content.
If that's not a basis for reasonable judgement about what a normal MMO quest is, I don't know what is. Perhaps you've been playing an MMO with the kind of quests you're talking about? If so, which one?
D&D the tabletop game is most definitely a roleplaying game. I am not denying that at all.
What I'm saying is that the roleplaying of D&D the tabletop game is fundamentally non-transferable to PvE video game content.
Video game RPGs, like this one, aren't really about roleplaying, because video games literally cannot support actual roleplaying. They're called RPGs because they use mechanics inspired by the mechanics of tabletop RPGs and have thematic similarities, but they do not actually contain anything like actual roleplaying, outside of players roleplaying with each other, which is not what you're talking about here. Your quest is no more definitively roleplaying than a hack-and-slash-fest. Any roleplaying that occurs in either case is a matter of how the player approaches the game, not how the quest is designed.
It's entirely possible to roleplay a HAMSTER fighter who kills monsters all day long. That is no more or less a legitimate form of roleplaying than roleplaying a detective. Wading through dialog box trees is just as foreign to tabletop roleplaying as action combat. Appealing to what tabletop D&D is does not support your position in any way.
As I said before, I do respect your opinions but do not concur with them. The underlying cause perhaps being (which is my assumption) you belief that a RP quest cannot be regarded as a norm in MMORPG.
One single line of OOC may very well be one whole sentence as breakage in immersion is how many times it has been broken rather than how much time.
It is possible to inform people that a RP quest requires certain skills or is difficult by using good language ("Only brave of heart should apply... " "No place for feeble hearted" etc.) but no way to say 'there would be a lot of talk and dialog box clicking'.
On the other hand, non-RP quests will not have that problem making it easy to 'tag' them. Not to mention that onus of being different in this game lies on non-RP quest as this is D&D:Neverwinter.
Basically in this game, non-RP quests are the green ones.
EDIT: Not to mention that saying that a RP quest in a RPG would be RP would be redundant... awwww I already said that!
You have been refering to your "dialog tree" design as roleplaying this entire time, by declaring it as a roleplaying quest standing in opposition to "non-roleplaying" quests. And given that it's your design, it stands to reason that it's your preferred sort of roleplaying. I don't see how it could be any more clear than that.
I don't see a distinction between respect and condone.
But if you do see a distinction, well, I fully condone, support, and encourage your preferred way of playing the game, and have no desire to get you to play in any other way, either by convincing you of anything, or by producing UGC that lulls you into a quest that features things that I enjoy that are outside the norm of MMO quests that don't fit with your playstyle.
And for the third time now, I'm not telling you to mark you quest as an RP quest. As far as I'm concerned, your quest is no more or less an RP quest than any other, so such a tag would be a lie.
I'm asking you to be clear about what game mechanics your quest uses and emphasizes. Not to label RP vs non-RP. "Navigate dialog trees" is clearly a different game mechanic than "kill monsters in action combat".
Please, where is this "roleplaying" quest in a video game? If nothing else, it would help me understand what you think "roleplaying" means in the context of video games.
Yes, it's UGC. I'm talking about the the quests that form the "norm" of MMO quests, which are the ones that are published officially, not the ones that random users add. And UGC is clearly not the "norm" of MMOs, anyway.
So then do you agree that the specific quest design you propose (deep dialog trees) is not the norm of MMOs? You don't seem to be arguing otherwise. The whole reason I think you should label your quest is because it lies outside the normal game mechanics what a player is likely to expect from an MMO, and thus might not find it to their liking.
If Neverwinter were advertised and known as the game of deep and meaningful dialog trees, I'd want someone who produces action combat in their UGC to label their quest as such. All I'm asking is that deviation from the reasonable normal expectations of players be clearly labeled.
I flatly deny any distinction of RPG vs non-RPG quests, period. And I was not asking about anything of the sort. Talking about non-RPG quests vs RPG quests is entirely besides the point I'm trying to make.
I was asking, only, whether you have played MMOs where deep dialog trees, necessary to carefully read to complete quests, are the norm.
I am only arguing, here, about whether that specific gameplay mechanic is the norm in MMOs, or not. In my experience, it is not even remotely close to normal. Perhaps your experience differs.
It's more than that. I don't believe that "roleplaying quests" even exist in PvE computer games, as something somehow distinct from "non-roleplaying quests", if we take roleplaying to mean what it means in tabletop games, which is what you were trying to do by invoking tabletop D&D in support of your position.
In summary, my position:
1) I do not view your quest as being "roleplaying" any more or less than a hack and slash quest. It's just focuses on a different game mechanic, that is just as far divorced from tabletop roleplaying.
2) I do not believe that "deep dialog trees which must be carefully studied and answered correctly to finish a quest" will be the normal gameplay mechanics that people expect from Neverwinter content.
3) I believe that UGC that deviates from expected gameplay should be labeled as such, so those that don't want it can easily ignore it, and those that do want it can seek it out. This would also include, for example, quests that are just endless hordes of monsters to kill. This would also deviate from the norms of MMOs, but it's something that I might well enjoy. It would appreciate it being labeled as such. As, I assume, would you, so you could avoid it.
On the other hand, the internet might just be full of people who want to see if it's possible to create a map that looks like a giant HAMSTER and get it published. That's probably why many MMORPGs don't let users decide their content, also. I know this is a digression from the mechanics labeling or tags thing, but my point is: UGC as a whole is simply not the "norm" for MMORPGs, so we can't really assume to know anything yet.
What the majority of quests will be - whether it's action-oriented or dialog heavy, fetchquest, grind, or narrative branching from lore - is impossible to say at this moment.
THERE IS NO NORM
Again, what people would consider a "norm" for D&D others might not in an MMO and vice versa. This game is both and Cryptic and PWE are not saying one label has precedence over the other.
This means what YOU consider the "norm" for whatever topic (be it D&D MMO a combination or altogether different things,) is your personal opinion and is not to establish precedence on how others must or even "should" play.
Understand that opinions will vary, but if you have one or more aspects heavily dominating a published module, it is common courtesy (and I dare even add common sense to get the right types who want to play your mod and the wrong types to avoid it,) to list this. SO if your mod has NO dialog and is ALL action, it's wise to list all-action; even if minimal dialog then list minimal dialog. It's the exact same if it's a very large amount of text/talking with limited combat or no combat. If something stands out, it's best to note that. It doesn't matter whether it's done well or not (that's what the ratings are for,) but to note how to get those players who want to play the mods they are looking for, or what they are even looking for that that time.
Making assumptions your mod is the "standard one" is as asinine that only your opinion is the "right one" for things like PvP (which I am not going into detail here, and feel free to search for it and read the archived posts to the current ones to see its evolution into this MMO.)
As for the two here debating gillrmn and quorforged: please scale it back a tad. Both of you are actually both right and wrong, and are slightly escalating this out of proportion We do enjoy the debate, just not the level of the discourse and indirect accusations. Just a tiny more civil, but overall not anything serious to worry about. We just don't want the thread to be dominated by the argument. If it stays this...passionate, I will come in and ask for it to be moved to PM's.
Thanks for your understanding.
But that's not what I've meant by "norm" at all. My intent is not to pass judgement, in any way, on how others "must" or "should" play. My entire goal is for people to have as much freedom as possible to play how they please, as easily as possible. And part of that is making sure people know what to expect from the gameplay of UGC.
My use of "normal" is only meant to represent what a player of an MMO is likely to consider the normal type of quest, based on how MMO quests are generally structured, and thus features of a quest that don't need to be called out as exceptional in a quest description.
But for something to "stand out", there must be a norm! A "normal" quest is then a quest where nothing "stands out" that warrants being called out in a description as being exceptional.
But the semantics of "normal" aside, what you suggest above is exactly what I've been arguing for all along.
"The standard one" would be highly presumptuous, but I don't think it's presumptuous to think that one's mod fits in with the norms established by the rest of the content in the game, which is all I've ever suggested.
Again, I'm not arguing that gil's quest itself is "wrong" in any way. Just that it's not one I'm interested in, and not one I think most players of any MMO would expect a priori.
Normal should be based on how the dev-created content operates. That's where new players will get their impressions of how the game plays, and that's what's primarily going to set peoples' expectations of what a "typical NWO quest" is, and thus what baseline any exceptions stated in quest descriptions are deviating from. Setting the baseline expectation to whatever the typical NGC involves would be hostile to anyone who is new to playing NGC, and thus is not familiar with what the prevailing community designs are.
I'm quite confident that the "typical NWO quest" will not involve dozens of dialog boxes that need to be carefully read to proceed with a quest. If they do, and it ends up being likely that players would expect such a design from NGC, then, assuming I'm still interested in playing the game, I'd certainly specify up-front that my UGC does not include such a thing. Likewise, if I make a pure arena quest with nearly endless waves of enemies, I would expect that to deviate from the norms of the game, and I would mark that as such. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't do myself for content that I myself would enjoy.
But I agree, it is based on the individual's preference of gameplay. I just think, by nature, most players utilizing the Foundry are going to try and break its boundaries to make something unique (which you may or may not enjoy), and many of the players that are waiting for another copy and paste dev quest are going to be hard pressed to find them.
I'm no analyst, mind you, but it's what I'm expecting to see sooner or later in NWO's lifespan.
I wholeheartedly agree. The non-RP quests should be marked "Action".
Recent MMOs tend to leave out the RPG part of MMORPG. It's a roleplaying game ! The genre has regretably been distorted into hack&slash, because of players' declining patience, attention span, and smart skills. Money grabbing devs have been turning the rich and intelligent MMORPG genre into a bumded down MMOhack&slash for the besotted masses. Like fine cuisine into fast food. I sincerly hope Neverwinter will return the full meaning of RPG to the MMORPG genre.
I will be making and sharing quests with rich and fun dialogs, with puzzles and riddles, the kind of which if you don't read thru, you have a good chance of failing (or wiping).
However, lastly I would like to mention that it is the "will" of the author whether or not to "tag" a quest. Others have naught to do with it nor have a say in it unless author asks for it.
The above mention will be true unless cryptic introduces some form of tagging and "guidelines" to tag a quest.
My opinion is "tagging" an RP quest is redundant, so if I am making non-RP quest, I will be tagging them as non-RP. Otherwise unless stated, my quests will be RP.
If combat is hard in RP quest, it will be so mentioned like (only veterans need to apply, as danger of life awaits...) or if any skills are required (...job will require certain discreet skills ... like that of a thief...).
And those who hate dialog, or puzzles, or traps won't get any love or warning from me.
Other authors may see it differently or if anybody wants to do something his or her way, they are welcome to try to make a quest by themselves and do it however they like.
I guess above part does clear everything up nice and crispy. Also - last thing to clear up - it is not that I hate only-combat missions - infact I play them myself sometimes - just to clear things up. So RP is not my "preferred" playing style. It is my preferred quest making style because it lets me tell my story(and because it is much difficult to make and needs advanced scripting and logic).
Even back when I played NWN online, modules would say in the descriptions if they were roleplay heavy - hell, there was even a search filter for it.
Fiona Bauerstone - Devoted Cleric - Dragon Server
Exactly. Roleplaying is what players do, not how game mechanics work. Monopoly can be roleplayed. The only reason we call D&D a "roleplaying game" is because it's mechanics were designed and intended with enabling and supporting roleplaying, but the mechanics themselves are no more or less "roleplaying" than any other game mechanics.
Deep dialog trees, and non-combat tasks are not inherently roleplaying. They're game mechanics like any other, including combat, that may or may not be roleplayed by a player. The only reason they're associated with roleplaying is because, typically, only players that enjoy roleplaying in the game are likely to enjoy those mechanics.
If I'm not roleplaying, a quest that's just running from point A to point B, with no combat or challenges in between, is tiresome and boring. If I am roleplaying, it could be the backdrop for all sorts of stories.
Mistake!
Our assumptions can't always be be the norm on how most players would play (even if typing it's not then implying it is.) The second mistake is only the MMO player here will decide how the content should be. To paraphrase from 300. This...is....D&D! Others may expect a large narrative like the DM would list, others would expect to be able to role play or even feel they are witnessing a story. Or not as a dungeon crawl.
More on immersion in another reply.
NORM!!!! Sorry I couldn't resist too!
Again, this is D&D. Just like there will be some players who only play a style in what's relating to ST based on the STO MMO, some people will expect certain things because it's D&D (more so because this comes from a game itself and not a TV show.) If that means role playing or dungeon crawl or anywhere in between could vary though.
So noted, it's his opinion, not how "all quests should be." But no, all D&D should NOT be by default Role-playing, as people may want to do the also classic dungeon crawl with NO role playing as iconic as the later role playing became. Chainmail the strategy game had almost zero role playing-except for listing fantasy characters that were used in the simulation-and many a classic gamer from those roots also did zero role playing and all attack simulation in D&D. Don't discount them either.
If you play a mission of his and note something should be listed and it's not, you have the right to comment on that. But don't go looking for dungeon crawl in a murder mystery either.
Again, it's your opinion, but it can seem like it's suggestive "you speak for game cannon" here.
Speaking as a DM and as a player of the D&D PnP, roleplaying in the D&D game has rules suggestions and are as mechanical yet optional like a place you can go to in an MMO but don't need to go to such as a field when a light is shined on shows a special scene. If WoW does it, then it's MMO roleplaying mechanics since it's coded in the game according to how your quoted reasoning worked. This may or may not be true, but it's an option and should be considered a part of MMOs whether it's either coded or played out when you are talking about D&D.
Roleplaying though should always be optional.
And people who like to be immersed in the story like it too. Are you saying verbose authors only write to role players? It's a writing style. Just like the authors who write "to get to the action." I'm speaking on both a novel and Foundry level here.
Should those in Foundry who rely heavily on dialog note this? Absolutely. Even if optional, your story when placed in a group of others should be listed to help others search or not search it. I'll leave the "role playing" or "immersion" or name if should be called for another time.