This is really nothing more then a useless thought exercise. While I agree with pretty much everyone here that the OPs thoughts are flawed, mistaking a referee for an opponent, Its still a pointless debate.
Cryptic is going to do what they want to do, and what they are allowed to do from Hasbro, regardless of the forum debates on the subject. Cryptic has a long history of being bad with PVP and leaving it unfinished and neglected. The proof is proudly displayed in their previous games. There have been cries, for YEARS, that improved PVP would lead to more revenue. These cries have been all but ignored, either because the revenue isn't there, or Cryptic simply isn't interested in it.
Honestly, asking for more, or even demanding it, will NEVER produce the results you want If they simply arnt interested or able to do it. How many more examples do you need? ELO, success or not? Leaderboard, success or not? Open Combat, success or not? Class balancing, success or not? Gauntlgrym, success or not? The pattern is clear enough to anyone willing to look at it. And pounding ones chest shouting "But its a PVP game" does nothing to change the cold reality of it.
Well, you just contradicted yourself then. Scripting is done in real time, then it is applied. The same as table-top actions of players and DMs. Anyways, I've made my point. Your opinion is valid, as it would be in your own homebrew Campaign.
The scripting of npc decisions is not in real time because it is not occurring at the same time the players are making decisions for their characters. You know exactly what I mean and are using semantics to dodge the point. But thanks for saying my points are valid.
Wow. While the DM is a human as are the players, they are not a player.
DM is a storyteller and/or referree.
D&D is focused on cooperative play, as Zebular stated.
A D&D session where the players (not the DM) attack each other is often a group that disbands shortly thereafter.
A DM is NOT a "Player." Period.
There is, however, no reason a D&D influenced MMO cannot have PvP as players are often the most unpredictable and worthy opponents as we don't have sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence yet.
Finally some kind of reasonable response. The DM is a player or he would have no involvement in the game.
As a story teller the DM not only plays the role of antagonist but designs an entire antagonistic world and storyline for the player-characters to develop/play through. Any story teller creates an antagonistic world for his characters, it is the nature of fiction its self, of story telling. An author or a movie or television script writer is a storyteller, they create these antagonistic worlds for the characters to develop through.
Books, movies and shows are not pvp because the storytelling is entirely scripted before hand, because the viewer/reader takes a passive role and because there is no interaction beyond simply experiencing the story.
This is the same for pve content. It is scripted before hand, and though the payer takes a more active role, the interactivity is a ruse, it is simulated interactivity, not real interactivity. When you play a game you are not interacting with the developers, you are simply experience the story they are telling within a relatively static frame of reference.
The Dungeon Master is telling a story but it is in real-time, the story he tells and the characters he plays react instantly and intelligently to the actions of the player-characters.
The Dungeon Master is not just a storyteller because he is interacting directly and instantly (aka playing) in the game along with the players.
Hate PvP. Hate when players demand PvP. Hate when games cater to players who demand PvP. People who want PvP should go get their corpsehump on in some mindless shooter for drunken frats.
A GOOD DM's job is not to be the antagonist. Virtually every tabletop RPG mentions this. Countless articles in such magazines as Dragon and White Dwarf have gone over this. A good DM's job is to provide the scenario, adjudicate decisions, and roleplay the NON-PLAYER characters. Note that phrase. NON-PLAYER. The DM is by definition not a player, as defined in the terminology of a tabletop role-playing game such as Dungeons and Dragons.
In most D&D games, many of the NPCs that will be encountered are monsters. Often those monsters are antagonistic toward the players. But if the DM is at all competent and worthy of the trust and responsibility inherent in the position, then only the NPCs are potentially antagonistic, and not the DM. The DM does not "win" if he "beats" the players. If that's his goal, then he's missing the point of the role-playing game entirely.
Seriously, you are incredibly off-base on what a DM should be in a tabletop D&D role-playing game. The one thing you almost got right is that the DM does, in fact, provide the ENVIRONMENT that the players interact with. You know, that word that the E in PvE stands for. PvP in a tabletop RPG is when a player character fights another player character. Such things often lead to the destruction of the game, the end of the story, and sometimes even the dissolution of the gaming group.
Go to some conventions, and play with some people not in your normal group. DunDraCon happens in two weeks, and is a fairly large one. There will be plenty of D&D 5th there. Play with some good DMs, then re-examine your statements.
My points come from a background and research in fiction, and yes, gaming. You cannot have fiction or a story without conflict and antagonism. Conflict is in every story even if it very subtle.
It is not about "winning and losing". Pvp is not about "winning and losing". Fiction and pvp and D&D are about a series of challenges (antagonism), setbacks, and victories which together define the progress of a character through a campaign or a pvp career. It should be challenging, it should be rewarding and it should be fun.
Hate PvP. Hate when players demand PvP. Hate when games cater to players who demand PvP. People who want PvP should go get their corpsehump on in some mindless shooter for drunken frats.
ugh another PVE elitist. Worse thing is they are the biggest hypocrites
0
Options
matiagronxMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 251Arc User
edited January 2015
There is nothing in common indeed, however due to monetizing strategy PVP is unfortunately implemented in NW, to the majority's dissapointment. And imo its the only reason this game lost so much in terms of progression and development.
So many resources used wrongly due to PVP griefing, so many changes with no reasoning due to PVP griefing, all these led to the ultimate demise of the MAIN reason the vast majority of players started NW, the huge lore of DnD which is BASED in PVE content.
We could have literally dozens of vast and immersive Dungeons with huge content based on DnD lore, BUT high hopes of monetizing PVP led to the current wreck.
I m so SAD of the current situation that i cant possibly stop complaining until Cryptic realizes that DnD's player base is mostly adults in their 30s-40s with HUGE monetizing potential as long as you do one simple thing, which is transfering DnD core elements to an MMO, and that is PVE content and DUNGEONS.
PvP doesnt belong in DnD, it can exist as a fun break in the form of duel or even CTF or w/e BUT purely at the side, like the dice game in gateway.
The DM is the arbitrator of the rules and mediator between the real and imagined world. They are more akin to a referee and thus they are not part of the competition. The DM describes what is happening using the rules as a guide, and then the players describe their character's actions. Rinse and repeat.
If the DM was purely antagonistic, the game would be very short indeed:
DM: There is a perfectly smooth metal door before you. How do you proceed? PCs: We open the door cautiously... DM: The door melts and a raging ball of fire erupts from beyond. You take 500 fire damage, everyone give me a save versus Dragon Breath for half. PCs: But we're still at negative 200 hit points, even if we save... DM: You ALL die... I win!
Thus the reason the DM is not a player...
I think your understanding of antagonism is a bit overblown. The fact that there is an obstacle blocking the intended path of the players is antagonistic. The more creativity and resources it takes to overcome the object the more antagonistic the object is. It does not have to turn into a monster and eat the characters faces. That is horrible fiction. That there is something subtle, mysterious, and perhaps a little threatening about the door is what makes it interesting.
FICTION is antagonistic period! Seriously why can't people wrap their heads around this. The FACT that fiction is based in conflict does not mean that the author kills all of te characters and says "haha I win!". Really that story would suck. Open your minds, I know what I am talking about.
Well this is an MMOrpg so PvP is implied. Also cooperative PvE is implied but we dont have that anymore so i guess its only pvp left
This is why I suggested mixing pvp and pve, so that players can inhabit dungeons to fight other players for the prize. Like 1 player of "power level 10" is a boss and guards a treasure horde (or whatever) against 5 players of "power level 2". With some creativity this kind of thing could be done very well and make fr some great gameplay and demand creative problem solving (as pvp always does).
ugh another PVE elitist. Worse thing is they are the biggest hypocrites
You do realize that by claiming that the group in opposition to you houses the biggest hypocrites, you are yourself making claims from the standpoint of an elitist, and thus being a hypocrite? You have no verifiable evidence to make this claim anymore than the poster you quoted. There is no useful reason to spread the vitriol of opinionated bias.
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
The simple fact is, there's a lot of ways to play D&D, and there's no one, true way of doing so. Saying that others are wrong for enjoying it their way is just being a curmudgeonly sourpuss.
If one examines the history of the game, there's several schools of thought about how D&D should be played that have gained eminence at different periods of time; 2nd Edition emphasized world-building, role-playing, and the absolute power of the DM; 3rd Edition had a back-to-the-dungeon approach, with more emphasis on character building and a rigid rules structure; 4th Edition tried and failed at building a more action-oriented system with more balance between magic and mundane characters.
At the same time, there's always been different ways to conduct the game. DMs can be more or less adversarial; in some games, fights between players will happen -- interestingly, quite often, this results from more role-playing-oriented games where people with different character motivations act those out to the hilt. From the start of the game as an adversarial miniatures game with David Arneson introducing storytelling elements, there's been room for conflict between players. The game has always offered room for this; paladins in most editions have been intolerant zealots that will not associate with people they consider scum, and may sometimes cause violent intra-party conflict. Besides strict role-playing, there's other ways in which fights between player characters happens; one player in my group never fails to have characters with low Will saves, so he tends to fight the rest of the party any time a mind-controlling NPC comes along.
Other elements of the game were also set up for different types of conflict; the reason Gygax strove for certain type of rules as a standard was because D&D was frequently played in a tournament format, with different groups competing against each other running the same adventures to see who'd succeed the best.
More recently, there was the advent of D&D Miniatures as a purely player-vs-player D&D-based skirmish game during 3rd Edition.
Now, most groups probably don't experience a lot of intra-player fighting, but it's indisputable that the game's roots are in player-vs-player games, and that there's always been a strain of different types of player-vs-player elements inherent to the game. The rules of D&D are about conflict resolution, and they offer a wide variety of different types of conflicts. Most games don't feature heavy player-vs-player conflicts because those tend to get personal and emotional in a negative way, but they do happen, and there are definitely D&D games that have a lot more of that.
Most people will not associate their D&D experience with PvP, but PvP is not alien to D&D, and while the system evolved from PvP to be something else, those elements are still present and will occasionally pop up in many games, in various forms. The point is, the attitude that "D&D is not PvP" is completely ignoring a lot of the game and the possibilities in favor of trying to universalize one's own experiences as being the "true way" of playing, which is both narrow-minded and a bit discriminatory.
Thank you and that is a great post.
I really think as mmos evolved and as D&D evolved through various multiplayer and mmo games, what is central to D&D got lost. Mainly the interactive real time story telling. I am articulating how that storytelling IS pvp, in an attempt to get people to broaden their concept of both pvp and d&d. The game (d&d in general) has become more of a set of labels and catagories and less of a good story.
It is unfortunate that the real challenge (the real antagonism, the real STORY) comes from pushing a characters pvp career. PvP in neverwinter is far more of a story than the endless grind we are offered as a game in pve. At least at endgame. Before that, yes the game is a lot of fun for new players. Not close to pnp d&d standards, but still fun for an mmo.
To me, the best of all worlds would be a heavy role-playing environment and a story-line that heavily combined pvp and pve.
I think your understanding of antagonism is a bit overblown. The fact that there is an obstacle blocking the intended path of the players is antagonistic. The more creativity and resources it takes to overcome the object the more antagonistic the object is. It does not have to turn into a monster and eat the characters faces. That is horrible fiction. That there is something subtle, mysterious, and perhaps a little threatening about the door is what makes it interesting.
FICTION is antagonistic period! Seriously why can't people wrap their heads around this. The FACT that fiction is based in conflict does not mean that the author kills all of te characters and says "haha I win!". Really that story would suck. Open your minds, I know what I am talking about.
My post was primarily a joke about PURELY antagonistic DMs. You can try and change the context if you like. However, arguing that others aren't as enlightened as you is a sure fire way to convince yourself of your righteousness, but it remains a hollow victory.
There is a reason so few agree with you: The DM is not competing with the players for resources (the DM can simply state that any creature has X resource). Therefore it is not PVP. There can be PVP in D&D, but the DM/Player dichotomy is not an example of such.
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
This is really nothing more then a useless thought exercise. While I agree with pretty much everyone here that the OPs thoughts are flawed, mistaking a referee for an opponent, Its still a pointless debate.
Cryptic is going to do what they want to do, and what they are allowed to do from Hasbro, regardless of the forum debates on the subject. Cryptic has a long history of being bad with PVP and leaving it unfinished and neglected. The proof is proudly displayed in their previous games. There have been cries, for YEARS, that improved PVP would lead to more revenue. These cries have been all but ignored, either because the revenue isn't there, or Cryptic simply isn't interested in it.
Honestly, asking for more, or even demanding it, will NEVER produce the results you want If they simply arnt interested or able to do it. How many more examples do you need? ELO, success or not? Leaderboard, success or not? Open Combat, success or not? Class balancing, success or not? Gauntlgrym, success or not? The pattern is clear enough to anyone willing to look at it. And pounding ones chest shouting "But its a PVP game" does nothing to change the cold reality of it.
In pure gameplay terms, why would a DM not be an opponent? As a DM, I design encounters to be challenging but not impossible and when it comes to combat I do my absolute best within the ability of the pre-designed NPCs to achieve a positive outcome for the NPC's I am playing. If NPCs (whether it is the corrupt city councilman, or the lich-king of some fabled but long lost distant kingdom) do not always try to actually win, they become phony and transparent. I relish the role of enemy when I play it, just like any bother role. These villains are not simple facades to serve the greater glory of the player characters, they should be as real as possible with their own multi-faceted personalities and drive to succeed.
The DM is "not just" the villain role or the opponent role, he is source of conflict and antagonism for the player characters; the idea is for them to meet these challenges and overcome them. No conflict, no opponent, no real antagonism and there is no real challenge.
The role of the DM isn't to be a "player" is to be the environnement they players must face. It's not PVP, it's considered PVE.
It is a game and he is playing it. That makes him a player. Realistic opponents with personality and drive, not a static "environment" for players to grind through. Take the DM "play" out of the formula and you remove what makes D&D unique.
It is a game and he is playing it. That makes him a player. Realistic opponents with personality and drive, not a static "environment" for players to grind through. Take the DM "play" out of the formula and you remove what makes D&D unique.
Take the DM and replace them with a "regular PLAYER" in that formula and you remove what makes D&D unique as well...
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
My post was primarily a joke about PURELY antagonistic DMs. You can try and change the context if you like. However, arguing that others aren't as enlightened as you is a sure fire way to convince yourself of your righteousness, but it remains a hollow victory.
There is a reason so few agree with you: The DM is not competing with the players for resources (the DM can simply state that any creature has X resource). Therefore it is not PVP. There can be PVP in D&D, but the DM/Player dichotomy is not an example of such.
The DM creates a whole world that is in competition with the players for resources. When they come into direct conflict, the DM plays the role of the opponents themselves.
0
Options
katbozejziemiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 856Arc User
edited January 2015
Nurse! He's out of bed again.
Nothing like busting out semantics when you have no actual point to argue.
Take the DM and replace them with a "regular PLAYER" in that formula and you remove what makes D&D unique as well...
That is right, which why we are not making him a "regular player". He creates a system of conflict known as the story, for the players to progress their characters through.
Why are you trolling my thread? If you don't like it, don't look at it.
I'm not trolling, I'm honestly concerned. You have stated things very far from the truth and are defending them in such a way that I don't think you're trolling. I think something is very wrong with you, the same way I'd find something very wrong with the person screaming that the sky was red in the street, and want them taken to the hospital to make sure they didn't have a head injury, brain tumor, etc.
So can we continue to expect the OP to take fragments of posts, ignoring the rest, just to support their power posting? While initially mildly entertaining, it's getting predictable enough that I don't see this topic going anywhere anymore.
We really don't need more pages of the OP sticking his fingers in his ears going "im still right" to every disagreement posted.
I'm not trolling, I'm honestly concerned. You have stated things very far from the truth and are defending them in such a way that I don't think you're trolling. I think something is very wrong with you, the same way I'd find something very wrong with the person screaming that the sky was red in the street, and want them taken to the hospital to make sure they didn't have a head injury, brain tumor, etc.
You refuse to respond to specific points and state why you think they are wrong. I am offering an alternate way of looking at something and you are just saying I am wrong without saying why. Doesn't it bother you that you feel so strong about something without being able to explain why?
Comments
I can point out dozens more of differences between neverwinter and DnD, but whats the point?
This is exactly what you're doing.
Cryptic is going to do what they want to do, and what they are allowed to do from Hasbro, regardless of the forum debates on the subject. Cryptic has a long history of being bad with PVP and leaving it unfinished and neglected. The proof is proudly displayed in their previous games. There have been cries, for YEARS, that improved PVP would lead to more revenue. These cries have been all but ignored, either because the revenue isn't there, or Cryptic simply isn't interested in it.
Honestly, asking for more, or even demanding it, will NEVER produce the results you want If they simply arnt interested or able to do it. How many more examples do you need? ELO, success or not? Leaderboard, success or not? Open Combat, success or not? Class balancing, success or not? Gauntlgrym, success or not? The pattern is clear enough to anyone willing to look at it. And pounding ones chest shouting "But its a PVP game" does nothing to change the cold reality of it.
The scripting of npc decisions is not in real time because it is not occurring at the same time the players are making decisions for their characters. You know exactly what I mean and are using semantics to dodge the point. But thanks for saying my points are valid.
Finally some kind of reasonable response. The DM is a player or he would have no involvement in the game.
As a story teller the DM not only plays the role of antagonist but designs an entire antagonistic world and storyline for the player-characters to develop/play through. Any story teller creates an antagonistic world for his characters, it is the nature of fiction its self, of story telling. An author or a movie or television script writer is a storyteller, they create these antagonistic worlds for the characters to develop through.
Books, movies and shows are not pvp because the storytelling is entirely scripted before hand, because the viewer/reader takes a passive role and because there is no interaction beyond simply experiencing the story.
This is the same for pve content. It is scripted before hand, and though the payer takes a more active role, the interactivity is a ruse, it is simulated interactivity, not real interactivity. When you play a game you are not interacting with the developers, you are simply experience the story they are telling within a relatively static frame of reference.
The Dungeon Master is telling a story but it is in real-time, the story he tells and the characters he plays react instantly and intelligently to the actions of the player-characters.
The Dungeon Master is not just a storyteller because he is interacting directly and instantly (aka playing) in the game along with the players.
Yes, Neverwinter is an MMO and not DnD so trying to use logic from DnD to justify PVP should not be included in this MMO is stupidity.
My points come from a background and research in fiction, and yes, gaming. You cannot have fiction or a story without conflict and antagonism. Conflict is in every story even if it very subtle.
It is not about "winning and losing". Pvp is not about "winning and losing". Fiction and pvp and D&D are about a series of challenges (antagonism), setbacks, and victories which together define the progress of a character through a campaign or a pvp career. It should be challenging, it should be rewarding and it should be fun.
ugh another PVE elitist. Worse thing is they are the biggest hypocrites
So many resources used wrongly due to PVP griefing, so many changes with no reasoning due to PVP griefing, all these led to the ultimate demise of the MAIN reason the vast majority of players started NW, the huge lore of DnD which is BASED in PVE content.
We could have literally dozens of vast and immersive Dungeons with huge content based on DnD lore, BUT high hopes of monetizing PVP led to the current wreck.
I m so SAD of the current situation that i cant possibly stop complaining until Cryptic realizes that DnD's player base is mostly adults in their 30s-40s with HUGE monetizing potential as long as you do one simple thing, which is transfering DnD core elements to an MMO, and that is PVE content and DUNGEONS.
PvP doesnt belong in DnD, it can exist as a fun break in the form of duel or even CTF or w/e BUT purely at the side, like the dice game in gateway.
I think your understanding of antagonism is a bit overblown. The fact that there is an obstacle blocking the intended path of the players is antagonistic. The more creativity and resources it takes to overcome the object the more antagonistic the object is. It does not have to turn into a monster and eat the characters faces. That is horrible fiction. That there is something subtle, mysterious, and perhaps a little threatening about the door is what makes it interesting.
FICTION is antagonistic period! Seriously why can't people wrap their heads around this. The FACT that fiction is based in conflict does not mean that the author kills all of te characters and says "haha I win!". Really that story would suck. Open your minds, I know what I am talking about.
This is why I suggested mixing pvp and pve, so that players can inhabit dungeons to fight other players for the prize. Like 1 player of "power level 10" is a boss and guards a treasure horde (or whatever) against 5 players of "power level 2". With some creativity this kind of thing could be done very well and make fr some great gameplay and demand creative problem solving (as pvp always does).
Indeed not. Again, check my threads and posts which suggest mixing pvp and pve.
Thank you and that is a great post.
I really think as mmos evolved and as D&D evolved through various multiplayer and mmo games, what is central to D&D got lost. Mainly the interactive real time story telling. I am articulating how that storytelling IS pvp, in an attempt to get people to broaden their concept of both pvp and d&d. The game (d&d in general) has become more of a set of labels and catagories and less of a good story.
It is unfortunate that the real challenge (the real antagonism, the real STORY) comes from pushing a characters pvp career. PvP in neverwinter is far more of a story than the endless grind we are offered as a game in pve. At least at endgame. Before that, yes the game is a lot of fun for new players. Not close to pnp d&d standards, but still fun for an mmo.
To me, the best of all worlds would be a heavy role-playing environment and a story-line that heavily combined pvp and pve.
There is a reason so few agree with you: The DM is not competing with the players for resources (the DM can simply state that any creature has X resource). Therefore it is not PVP. There can be PVP in D&D, but the DM/Player dichotomy is not an example of such.
In pure gameplay terms, why would a DM not be an opponent? As a DM, I design encounters to be challenging but not impossible and when it comes to combat I do my absolute best within the ability of the pre-designed NPCs to achieve a positive outcome for the NPC's I am playing. If NPCs (whether it is the corrupt city councilman, or the lich-king of some fabled but long lost distant kingdom) do not always try to actually win, they become phony and transparent. I relish the role of enemy when I play it, just like any bother role. These villains are not simple facades to serve the greater glory of the player characters, they should be as real as possible with their own multi-faceted personalities and drive to succeed.
The DM is "not just" the villain role or the opponent role, he is source of conflict and antagonism for the player characters; the idea is for them to meet these challenges and overcome them. No conflict, no opponent, no real antagonism and there is no real challenge.
That is not any game I will ever DM.
It is a game and he is playing it. That makes him a player. Realistic opponents with personality and drive, not a static "environment" for players to grind through. Take the DM "play" out of the formula and you remove what makes D&D unique.
The DM creates a whole world that is in competition with the players for resources. When they come into direct conflict, the DM plays the role of the opponents themselves.
Nothing like busting out semantics when you have no actual point to argue.
Why are you trolling my thread? If you don't like it, don't look at it.
That is right, which why we are not making him a "regular player". He creates a system of conflict known as the story, for the players to progress their characters through.
I'm not trolling, I'm honestly concerned. You have stated things very far from the truth and are defending them in such a way that I don't think you're trolling. I think something is very wrong with you, the same way I'd find something very wrong with the person screaming that the sky was red in the street, and want them taken to the hospital to make sure they didn't have a head injury, brain tumor, etc.
Again, why troll my thread? I thought trolling was against forum policy? Take that poison back to pve.
We really don't need more pages of the OP sticking his fingers in his ears going "im still right" to every disagreement posted.
You refuse to respond to specific points and state why you think they are wrong. I am offering an alternate way of looking at something and you are just saying I am wrong without saying why. Doesn't it bother you that you feel so strong about something without being able to explain why?