I want a clear simple system. Warmonger is tank, his sole role is tank, in group he tanks. Period. Zombie-master is crowd control, his zombies root/debuff enemies. His sole role is crowd control, in group he is responsible for crowd control. Period. Warlock is healer. His sole role is healer, in group he heals everyone. Period.
LeeRoyJenkins is dps, his sole role is to hit hard, in group he is one who delivers all blows. Period.
Class that is good-for-everything? In Lotro we have Wardens that are good for most things...and MInstrels that are not good at anything (out-dps'ed by most classes, out-healed by Beornings).
Well that depends on the game. And what I want to do in the game. If I group 90% of the time I do not mind playing a highly specailised class with min/max attitude with a distinct role. However if I solo 90% of the time I want a decent solo class. But I still want my class to be able to fill a role in a group.
I am a scizo misanthrope. So one day I may go BANZAI on your post. Have not yet though. Maybe there is hope? Nah there is really none for me or the human race.
E. A skill based system where your skill choises define the role(s) you can take. Not really a spec system like WoW but a dynamic and situational role choice, and also mostly unrestricted - Which means you are not limited to x amount of skill points to make a build from, but instead true skill based where you get skillpoints when you use a skill; mostly unlimited.
The secondary component which is just as important - Situational and non strict role requirement game design. What does that mean? It basically means many different tactics should be available at most situations, so (almost) "any" number of players with some variety on role choices should be able to beat encounters using a combination of their roles and tactical playing skills (individually and co-op). Lack a tank? Use kiting, use crowd control, use larger area, buff a pet to the sky (at the expense of other things), double down on healing (at the expense of dps)... And so on - Basically between a somewhat well rounded set of players, there should always be a combination of roles that work.
Obviously there will always emerge the optimal way to play, but that is fine as long as it doesn't get out of proportions. A sub optimal group might take 1.5 or 2.0 amount of time of a "perfec role setup" but they can get things done and have fun (variety is fun). And then make the game a little less about efficiency in killing things. as fast as possible.
Well that depends on the game. And what I want to do in the game. If I group 90% of the time I do not mind playing a highly specailised class with min/max attitude with a distinct role. However if I solo 90% of the time I want a decent solo class. But I still want my class to be able to fill a role in a group.
Yep, pretty much.
Except I would say that even at 90% you dont just want to stand around the other 10% of the time. So even if you have a group focused game, you probably dont want to suck completely while solo.
For example Vanguard did that pretty well. Warrior and Monk was what you would want to avoid unless you could get groups, because solo all they could do was tank the mob, and even a Warrior couldnt handle much of that without healing. Well, Monk had a selfheal on a very long recast timer, and at very high levels they could get weapons from raid mobs which would heal, so in the long term they have been a bit better off, but overall, no.
Some others have been limited to kiting (Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Druid, Rogue, Phoenix Shaman and the later two really rather sucked at it) or didnt have much in regards to damage (Paladin, but especially Cleric) or couldnt handle adds well (Blood Mage), but soloing was quite possible on them. And then there was of course the soloing gods (Dread Knight, Bear Shaman, Disciple, Necromancer) which could do insane things alone. One Dread Knight apparently even managed to solo a raidboss. That was the easiest raidboss in the game and after they raised the maxlevel from 50 to 55, but still.
While when I was shanghaied (for a short time) to play Lineage 2, OH MY GOD did that suck while solo. Unless you played classes which are decent at solo, which basically was archer or mage.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps the most famous table top role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, is class based as is perhaps the most famous MMORPG, WoW.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
To be fair "Dwarf" "Elf" and "Halfling" were both classes and races in Dungeons and Dragons.
They were, in Basic D&D.
However, it is Advanced D&D that became more established such that it eventually gained mass public awareness, and in that class and race were separate with their presentation in Basic accounted for through multi-classing.
The descriptor of 'Advanced' was maintained through second edition, and then dropped in third edition onward because consistency sucks apparently.
True, but AD&D also added in Multiclassing, so an Elf could in fact be a Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, all at the same time.
In fact, in D&D and AD&D, there was never a sense of "Know your Role" as making due, was always a huge part of the campaign, and the keystone of role playing, to test your imagination.
The idea of myopic roles, really only started in EQ, with the idea of classes needing each other, and thus, the dumbing down of the player base to fall in line with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
The old school D&D cleric, was just at home praying to Gods of War and jumping into battle, as they would have been holding the back line healing. That role as it were, was up to the player, not the class.
Only modern MMO's set it up so that the Warrior could not do anything outside hit things with a big weapon, and be a meat shield, and all the other classes got dumbed down as well, to the point that the cleric really could not do anything outside cast healing spells.
But this was more to do with MMO's Dev's who, for whatever reason, opted to build the idea of what they called Interdependency, and really nothing to do with what D&D set up.
Legit, you could play a D&D game of 5 clerics, and none of them the same, and each would have something they excel at, the rise of cookie cutters in MMO's where all clerics would be identical of they suck, is nothing like the versatility that A/D&D offered, and as far as I have seen, the only game to really translate that versatility well as been DDO.
Also, Added: Minor Note, they dropped the "Advanced" because TSR was bought by WOTC, and WOTC opted to stop making Basic and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, as for a long time, Basic and Advanced coexisted side by side, both with their own revisions and rule sets.
When WOTC bought the rights, they just made One System, called 3rd Edition, and moved forward from there.
Yes, I mentioned that multi-class was how AD&D bridged the demihuman races from how they were in Basic to how they became in Advanced.
In earlier versions of A/D&D it was basically impossible not to know your role. Most classes could do only one thing well making a diverse party necessary for success except in scenarios specifically designed to accommodate otherwise. Fighters tanked. Clerics supported. Magic-Users blasted. Thieves thieved.
Clerics praying to their gods back home weren't relevant to actively adventuring parties. They were primarily around as NPCs to fix what your party cleric couldn't as of yet should the players mess up big time but still manage to get back to town.
There was little to no mechanical difference from one member of a class to the next of the same level, other than Magic-Users that only varied in terms of known spells. The uniqueness of characters came from outside the mechanics. They were derived from how players imagined and portrayed those characters that were otherwise inherently near duplicates of each other.
Greater character diversity didn't really start happening until WotC got a hold of things, to rapacious scale with third edition onward. Forget needing just the PHB as a player, and that and the DMG and MM as the DM. Now each and every edition comes with it's own library of tomes from which each character most be constructed with 1,000 special snowflakes glued together with supplement ooze.
Everquest was far closer to earlier editions than what D&D was to later become with third edition onward.
If you played five Clerics in early A/D&D they would all be very similar from one to next in terms of character ability. They could only vary in the spells they prayed for, and those available to pray for were the same for all clerics. They were at least more diverse than five Fighters of Thieves, but not so much as five Magic-Users. Regardless, none of those early classes had the diversity in character build of later editions.
That is how it really was in the beginning. The vast diversity between characters, and library of books needed to support it, came with WotC.
I don't think my knowledge is what is lacking.. I think your experience is what was lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Well this discussion made me think of something that went on with DDO. DDO was and is, a real outliner of a game, where you will have people that will have a favorite class, or shall we say Class Enthusiast.
To use a grand example of this, in DDO, they had/have a group call called R.O..G.U.E which was a group of Thief/Rogue class Enthusiasts that would build all kinds of various and challenging Rogue classes, mixes, and then set off to achieve some, really fun challenges that would set for themselves.
In this case, one of the challenges was an All Rogue shroud (Before Epic Levels) Shroud was an end game raid, that took several distinct roles, like Tank, Off Tank, Crystal, Healer, Kiter, etc, etc.
So doing this raid with just a bunch of squishy rogue builds, was a challenge, no joke, it was in fact a challenge, all in it's own right.
Well to the surprise of no one, involved in the All Rogue Shroud, I made a rogue tank, and tanked the boss, with a rogue/fighter split.
Now I want to be very clear, to be that kind of Rogue that could face tank a Pit Fiend, I had to make some serious trade offs to my sneaky/stealthy and trappy kind of things, but, that did not change that I was still the kind the rogue that could go toe to toe with a raid boss.
We had healers, we had kiters, we had an off tank, we had ranged, we had all the very specific, and needed traditional roles of the raid filled, by rogues and rogue hybrids.
Which IMHO is the best way to design a game.
Role Should Not Equal Class Class Should Not Equal Role
But you can still have distinct roles and classes.
Allow players to make what they want, and you would be amazed how many people might make healers, if you didn't force them into a smock, give them a holy club of the holy suck as a weapon, and tell them all they can do is cast healing spells.
Allow that person playing a Monk to function as a healer, a while making it a challenge, but also making it doable, you would amazed how many people might be more than willing to rise up to various roles.
While no doubt you would have many sticks in the mud, that would cling to Class = Role, the real beauty would be the people willing to push the limits of what they can do with what they have to play with.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I don't think my knowledge is what is lacking.. I think your experience is what was lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
Yeah, I've been playing since AD&D 1st Ed. and Basic were the only versions, and nobody bothered with Basic at least where I lived. My experience is abundant.
Clerics had the advantage of being able to change up their spells through prayer which gave them remarkable flexibility in that sole regard, Otherwise the class abilities of each and every AD&D 1st Ed. Cleric were exactly the same at the same level.
Every other class had less ongoing flexibility, and other than the Magic-User had far less potential diversity. Fighters and Thieves were all carbon copies mechanically as their fellows at the same level.
Compared to the snowflake blizzard that has enveloped D&D from 3rd Ed. onward, none of these classes, including the Cleric, come anywhere close to the degree of diversity of their modern counterparts.
Yes, a party of five AD&D 1st Ed. Clerics could orchestrate their prayers to have a wide variety of spells available. The same could be done by five D&D Clerics in the more modern editions I assume, but they could also be diverse in the many other layers of differentiation that exploded with 3rd Ed. and beyond.
These classes simply aren't in the same ballpark from back then to now.
Well this discussion made me think of something that went on with DDO. DDO was and is, a real outliner of a game, where you will have people that will have a favorite class, or shall we say Class Enthusiast.
To use a grand example of this, in DDO, they had/have a group call called R.O..G.U.E which was a group of Thief/Rogue class Enthusiasts that would build all kinds of various and challenging Rogue classes, mixes, and then set off to achieve some, really fun challenges that would set for themselves.
In this case, one of the challenges was an All Rogue shroud (Before Epic Levels) Shroud was an end game raid, that took several distinct roles, like Tank, Off Tank, Crystal, Healer, Kiter, etc, etc.
So doing this raid with just a bunch of squishy rogue builds, was a challenge, no joke, it was in fact a challenge, all in it's own right.
Well to the surprise of no one, involved in the All Rogue Shroud, I made a rogue tank, and tanked the boss, with a rogue/fighter split.
Now I want to be very clear, to be that kind of Rogue that could face tank a Pit Fiend, I had to make some serious trade offs to my sneaky/stealthy and trappy kind of things, but, that did not change that I was still the kind the rogue that could go toe to toe with a raid boss.
We had healers, we had kiters, we had an off tank, we had ranged, we had all the very specific, and needed traditional roles of the raid filled, by rogues and rogue hybrids.
Which IMHO is the best way to design a game.
Role Should Not Equal Class Class Should Not Equal Role
But you can still have distinct roles and classes.
Allow players to make what they want, and you would be amazed how many people might make healers, if you didn't force them into a smock, give them a holy club of the holy suck as a weapon, and tell them all they can do is cast healing spells.
Allow that person playing a Monk to function as a healer, a while making it a challenge, but also making it doable, you would amazed how many people might be more than willing to rise up to various roles.
While no doubt you would have many sticks in the mud, that would cling to Class = Role, the real beauty would be the people willing to push the limits of what they can do with what they have to play with.
One of the great things about DDO is that you can have all the mechanical minutia and manipulation of that allows for such being tracked by the game itself rather than having that burden fall upon the players themselves.
DDO I can enjoy, but I will never be able to say the same of D&D 3.5 Ed. that it is loosely related to. It essentially distills the fun from the excessive bloat of the 3.5 system.
I don't think my knowledge is what is lacking.. I think your experience is what was lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
Yeah, I've been playing since AD&D 1st Ed. and Basic were the only versions, and nobody bothered with Basic at least where I lived. My experience is abundant.
Clerics had the advantage of being able to change up their spells through prayer which gave them remarkable flexibility in that sole regard, Otherwise the class abilities of each and every AD&D 1st Ed. Cleric were exactly the same at the same level.
Every other class had less ongoing flexibility, and other than the Magic-User had far less potential diversity. Fighters and Thieves were all carbon copies mechanically as their fellows at the same level.
Compared to the snowflake blizzard that has enveloped D&D from 3rd Ed. onward, none of these classes, including the Cleric, come anywhere close to the degree of diversity of their modern counterparts.
Yes, a party of five AD&D 1st Ed. Clerics could orchestrate their prayers to have a wide variety of spells available. The same could be done by five D&D Clerics in the more modern editions I assume, but they could also be diverse in the many other layers of differentiation that exploded with 3rd Ed. and beyond.
These classes simply aren't in the same ballpark from back then to now.
Players Handbook Dungeon Masters Guide Monster Manual Fiend Folio Monster Manual II Deities and Demigods Oriental Adventures Unearthed Arcana Manual of the Planes Dungeoneers Survival Guide Wilderness Survival Guide Grayhawk Dragonlance
That... seems like a lot of rules, and resources, and money spent by broke ass kids, just to hear how all classes were the same.
Honestly, it's been like 30+ years since I played AD&D first edition, so, if that was how you all rolled, then , is what it is, hopefully you still have the books, that would be novel, I lost all my books and dragon mags in a flood decades ago, but I recall it all being a lot more dynamic than all fighters being the same.
With that said.
DDO, does make it a lot easier to build and customize your character, I have always wondered why with all the modern power we have with modern games, that the character builds became more and more simplistic, you would think they would allow complexity, as opposed to locking things, down to the point that in some games, race, class, weapon, armor, and even gender are all locked into a single path.
Always thought that Online gaming would make games like DDO the norm, as opposed to the outliner.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
When it comes to PvE it feels like there is a lot of different classes that do similar things.
You got dps warriors, rogues, monks and they stand in melee and deal damage. You got the ranged casters and hunters, they mostly do the same. You got the priest, cleric, druid and they all heal You got the different tanks, and its the same for them.
Balancing so many things that do similar things is messy and you often get a few best options and a few awful options. When you try to tune it, you get streamlining that removes what's unique.
Since I'm a raider that went back into tbc classic and soon entering wotlk there's such a huge powergap between optimal and suboptimal setups for tbc. In wotlk you still have classes/specs that are better but the gaps just ain't as big and more forgiving for raiding. TBC kinda sucks with the whole "bring five shamans, give mages a battery, make sure that melee gets full buffs" approach and when you are in a group without the buffs you just ends up sucking.
As someone that primarily plays healers, I do like that all 4 healers have quite different toolsets and strength and a combination is better than just bringing 5 healers of the same class.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I don't think my knowledge is what is lacking.. I think your experience is what was lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
Yeah, I've been playing since AD&D 1st Ed. and Basic were the only versions, and nobody bothered with Basic at least where I lived. My experience is abundant.
Clerics had the advantage of being able to change up their spells through prayer which gave them remarkable flexibility in that sole regard, Otherwise the class abilities of each and every AD&D 1st Ed. Cleric were exactly the same at the same level.
Every other class had less ongoing flexibility, and other than the Magic-User had far less potential diversity. Fighters and Thieves were all carbon copies mechanically as their fellows at the same level.
Compared to the snowflake blizzard that has enveloped D&D from 3rd Ed. onward, none of these classes, including the Cleric, come anywhere close to the degree of diversity of their modern counterparts.
Yes, a party of five AD&D 1st Ed. Clerics could orchestrate their prayers to have a wide variety of spells available. The same could be done by five D&D Clerics in the more modern editions I assume, but they could also be diverse in the many other layers of differentiation that exploded with 3rd Ed. and beyond.
These classes simply aren't in the same ballpark from back then to now.
Players Handbook Dungeon Masters Guide Monster Manual Fiend Folio Monster Manual II Deities and Demigods Oriental Adventures Unearthed Arcana Manual of the Planes Dungeoneers Survival Guide Wilderness Survival Guide Grayhawk Dragonlance
That... seems like a lot of rules, and resources, and money spent by broke ass kids, just to hear how all classes were the same.
Honestly, it's been like 30+ years since I played AD&D first edition, so, if that was how you all rolled, then , is what it is, hopefully you still have the books, that would be novel, I lost all my books and dragon mags in a flood decades ago, but I recall it all being a lot more dynamic than all fighters being the same.
With that said.
DDO, does make it a lot easier to build and customize your character, I have always wondered why with all the modern power we have with modern games, that the character builds became more and more simplistic, you would think they would allow complexity, as opposed to locking things, down to the point that in some games, race, class, weapon, armor, and even gender are all locked into a single path.
Always thought that Online gaming would make games like DDO the norm, as opposed to the outliner.
Yeah, it seems like a lot when presented in a bubble. Now make a similar list for 3.5 and we'll see if it still looks like a lot in comparison. Spoiler ~ It will not.
AD&D is the molehill to the later edition mountains.
In our personal games, players needed the PHB. Our DM also used the DMG of course, and the MM, FF, and MMII situationally though we could have easily gotten by with only one of the monster books. He also used Deities and Demigods sporadically, depending on the campaign. Everything else was of our own making.
I still have my AD&D PHB and coincidentally just starting playing again with some of the same fellows and a few others after a lengthy break. This is being run by a different DM so I have no idea what all he uses in terms of books other than his mentioning that he only uses the Monster Manual and character creation was confined to that in the PHB. He also has his own homebrew setting so nothing related to published ones will need to be referenced.
Computers allow for all kinds of complexity so it certainly could have gone that way. The thing is, most people aren't big fans of complexity. Generally the simpler, and therefore easier, things are to use the more they catch on.
That simplicity doesn't need to be confining, either. Builds are far more complex in DDO than ESO but that doesn't prevent characters of the latter from being diverse and able to fulfill any role regardless of class.
I don't think my knowledge is what is lacking.. I think your experience is what was lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
Yeah, I've been playing since AD&D 1st Ed. and Basic were the only versions, and nobody bothered with Basic at least where I lived. My experience is abundant.
Clerics had the advantage of being able to change up their spells through prayer which gave them remarkable flexibility in that sole regard, Otherwise the class abilities of each and every AD&D 1st Ed. Cleric were exactly the same at the same level.
Every other class had less ongoing flexibility, and other than the Magic-User had far less potential diversity. Fighters and Thieves were all carbon copies mechanically as their fellows at the same level.
Compared to the snowflake blizzard that has enveloped D&D from 3rd Ed. onward, none of these classes, including the Cleric, come anywhere close to the degree of diversity of their modern counterparts.
Yes, a party of five AD&D 1st Ed. Clerics could orchestrate their prayers to have a wide variety of spells available. The same could be done by five D&D Clerics in the more modern editions I assume, but they could also be diverse in the many other layers of differentiation that exploded with 3rd Ed. and beyond.
These classes simply aren't in the same ballpark from back then to now.
Players Handbook Dungeon Masters Guide Monster Manual Fiend Folio Monster Manual II Deities and Demigods Oriental Adventures Unearthed Arcana Manual of the Planes Dungeoneers Survival Guide Wilderness Survival Guide Grayhawk Dragonlance
That... seems like a lot of rules, and resources, and money spent by broke ass kids, just to hear how all classes were the same.
Honestly, it's been like 30+ years since I played AD&D first edition, so, if that was how you all rolled, then , is what it is, hopefully you still have the books, that would be novel, I lost all my books and dragon mags in a flood decades ago, but I recall it all being a lot more dynamic than all fighters being the same.
With that said.
DDO, does make it a lot easier to build and customize your character, I have always wondered why with all the modern power we have with modern games, that the character builds became more and more simplistic, you would think they would allow complexity, as opposed to locking things, down to the point that in some games, race, class, weapon, armor, and even gender are all locked into a single path.
Always thought that Online gaming would make games like DDO the norm, as opposed to the outliner.
Yeah, it seems like a lot when presented in a bubble. Now make a similar list for 3.5 and we'll see if it still looks like a lot in comparison. Spoiler ~ It will not.
AD&D is the molehill to the later edition mountains.
In our personal games, players needed the PHB. Our DM also used the DMG of course, and the MM, FF, and MMII situationally though we could have easily gotten by with only one of the monster books. He also used Deities and Demigods sporadically, depending on the campaign. Everything else was of our own making.
I still have my AD&D PHB and coincidentally just starting playing again with some of the same fellows and a few others after a lengthy break. This is being run by a different DM so I have no idea what all he uses in terms of books other than his mentioning that he only uses the Monster Manual and character creation was confined to that in the PHB. He also has his own homebrew setting so nothing related to published ones will need to be referenced.
Computers allow for all kinds of complexity so it certainly could have gone that way. The thing is, most people aren't big fans of complexity. Generally the simpler, and therefore easier, things are to use the more they catch on.
That simplicity doesn't need to be confining, either. Builds are far more complex in DDO than ESO but that doesn't prevent characters of the latter from being diverse and able to fulfill any role regardless of class.
IIRC, it was Second Edition with all "The Complete Guide to Ass Scratching for Necromancers" that was the bloated cluster fuck of a system, and 3.x was a streamlined edition to curtail that bloat.
I could be wrong, again, been a few decades, I think 3.x was also the intro to the D20 System as well, which further refined things to allow for more playing and less rules lawyering.
Also saw the start of other systems like Pathfinder.
But in any case, I stand by what I said, making a game where players can be dynamic, are not locked into neat little box, where the encounter may have roles, where a tank might be a needed, or some such, but, that tank is not locked down to just Fighters, or Paladins, and there is room, for, well, as I said, for some people that may have a passion for playing Frontal Assault Melee, to make a Rogue that can Face Tank a Pit Fiend, while being healed by another Rogue, a reality of the game.
Make no mistake, that kind of stuff takes a lot of work and gear, but I think that is what makes a great game where it is not handed to you, but you can make it happen.
DDO is simple enough that if you started, you could play with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
But for players that wanted more, wanted a deep game, wanted to see how far they could push the limits of their class and build, and go down that rabbit hole, to the point that the Healer, Tank, and CC are all Rogues.
DDO puts that out there as well.
And I think a lot of games would do well to learn from that kind of mechanic of character building.
It's as shallow or deep as you want to make it.
Wish more games were made like that.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
IIRC, it was Second Edition with all "The Complete Guide to Ass Scratching for Necromancers" that was the bloated cluster fuck of a system, and 3.x was a streamlined edition to curtail that bloat.
I could be wrong, again, been a few decades, I think 3.x was also the intro to the D20 System as well, which further refined things to allow for more playing and less rules lawyering.
Also saw the start of other systems like Pathfinder.
But in any case, I stand by what I said, making a game where players can be dynamic, are not locked into neat little box, where the encounter may have roles, where a tank might be a needed, or some such, but, that tank is not locked down to just Fighters, or Paladins, and there is room, for, well, as I said, for some people that may have a passion for playing Frontal Assault Melee, to make a Rogue that can Face Tank a Pit Fiend, while being healed by another Rogue, a reality of the game.
Make no mistake, that kind of stuff takes a lot of work and gear, but I think that is what makes a great game where it is not handed to you, but you can make it happen.
DDO is simple enough that if you started, you could play with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
But for players that wanted more, wanted a deep game, wanted to see how far they could push the limits of their class and build, and go down that rabbit hole, to the point that the Healer, Tank, and CC are all Rogues.
DDO puts that out there as well.
And I think a lot of games would do well to learn from that kind of mechanic of character building.
It's as shallow or deep as you want to make it.
Wish more games were made like that.
Heh, yeah I wouldn't be surprised if a source book Necromancer ass scratching was provided in 2nd. The announced reason for 3.5 was to curtail that bloat, which was great for the five seconds it lasted until it was replaced by even greater 3.5 bloat, with the difference being it could now come from anyone rather than just WotC alone.
So, the curtailing 2nd Ed. bloat excuse was pure BS as all it was really meant to do was be the leading wedge for a sparkling brand new version of what everyone already had for the sake of selling product, with a side order of yet more bloat pushing it beyond what supposedly needed to be streamlined ever had. Talk about monetization... They've done it twice since and probably trotted out the same excuse for those new editions as well.
I loathe what WotC has done to D&D since they dug their claws into it.
To be fair, AD&D did have more books than I recalled. Just because our group didn't use a good number of them doesn't void them, so I appreciate that correction. But it never got anywhere close to WotC has pumped out, never mind the glut from companies from their open D20 thing, whatever it was called.
Anyway...
This is clearly something I'm biased on and get "triggered" over as they say these days. D20 provided an opportunity for new games and ideas that may not have otherwise seen the light of day, so I pretty much have to give WotC credit for that. Blech.
DDO isn't simple from a character design point of view even for a basic Cleric which the player will find out soon enough as the increasing number of intricacies that must be considered are discovered.
By the time I got off the starting island the last time I gave it a go I had more clickies on my bars than half of the abilities of an entire ESO build, never mind the few class abilities and other assorted bits that will fill the remainder. All of that is just the tip of the iceberg, so even at it's most basic DDO is not simple, not by a long shot. Goodness knows what even that would like at 20. So... many... buttons... no doubt.
And all of that is nothing compared to what it can be.
Perhaps your familiarity with the game is such your awareness of how quickly daunting the game can be to newcomers, especially those with no D&D background whatsoever I imagine. I was fortunate enough to have some grounding knowledge.
MMORPG players are lucky DDO is still around as it really does offer a lot you can't quite get elsewhere. Sure, in ESO I can make a character with heavy stealth that gets bonus damage when attacking out of it and pick the locks of random treasure chests scattered about solely for that purpose, but it will never be anything close to a DDO Thief, and even if it was the game world wouldn't support that intricacy in play.
In ESO there are no hidden traps to be detected and disarmed. There are no locked doors sealing off dungeon areas until picked. No secret doors are available to be spotted by those so skilled or racially gifted. The same applies to the unique abilities of other classes how they affect and facilitate play. That kind of detail isn't there, or in most fantasy MMORPGs really.
That aspect of DDO also makes grouping perhaps even more vital than many of it's fellows. It's not just a trinity that must be kept in mind, but also an unrivalled buffet of other elements that need to variously be considered depending on what is being gone up against.
Yep, we're lucky to have it, and hopefully it will endure for a good while yet as there are no close substitutes to resort to should it vanish.
Comments
I want a clear simple system. Warmonger is tank, his sole role is tank, in group he tanks. Period.
Zombie-master is crowd control, his zombies root/debuff enemies. His sole role is crowd control, in group he is responsible for crowd control. Period.
Warlock is healer. His sole role is healer, in group he heals everyone. Period.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
However if I solo 90% of the time I want a decent solo class. But I still want my class to be able to fill a role in a group.
Have not yet though. Maybe there is hope?
Nah there is really none for me or the human race.
A skill based system where your skill choises define the role(s) you can take. Not really a spec system like WoW but a dynamic and situational role choice, and also mostly unrestricted - Which means you are not limited to x amount of skill points to make a build from, but instead true skill based where you get skillpoints when you use a skill; mostly unlimited.
The secondary component which is just as important - Situational and non strict role requirement game design.
What does that mean? It basically means many different tactics should be available at most situations, so (almost) "any" number of players with some variety on role choices should be able to beat encounters using a combination of their roles and tactical playing skills (individually and co-op). Lack a tank? Use kiting, use crowd control, use larger area, buff a pet to the sky (at the expense of other things), double down on healing (at the expense of dps)... And so on - Basically between a somewhat well rounded set of players, there should always be a combination of roles that work.
Obviously there will always emerge the optimal way to play, but that is fine as long as it doesn't get out of proportions. A sub optimal group might take 1.5 or 2.0 amount of time of a "perfec role setup" but they can get things done and have fun (variety is fun).
And then make the game a little less about efficiency in killing things. as fast as possible.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Yes, I mentioned that multi-class was how AD&D bridged the demihuman races from how they were in Basic to how they became in Advanced.
In earlier versions of A/D&D it was basically impossible not to know your role. Most classes could do only one thing well making a diverse party necessary for success except in scenarios specifically designed to accommodate otherwise. Fighters tanked. Clerics supported. Magic-Users blasted. Thieves thieved.
Clerics praying to their gods back home weren't relevant to actively adventuring parties. They were primarily around as NPCs to fix what your party cleric couldn't as of yet should the players mess up big time but still manage to get back to town.
There was little to no mechanical difference from one member of a class to the next of the same level, other than Magic-Users that only varied in terms of known spells. The uniqueness of characters came from outside the mechanics. They were derived from how players imagined and portrayed those characters that were otherwise inherently near duplicates of each other.
Greater character diversity didn't really start happening until WotC got a hold of things, to rapacious scale with third edition onward. Forget needing just the PHB as a player, and that and the DMG and MM as the DM. Now each and every edition comes with it's own library of tomes from which each character most be constructed with 1,000 special snowflakes glued together with supplement ooze.
Everquest was far closer to earlier editions than what D&D was to later become with third edition onward.
If you played five Clerics in early A/D&D they would all be very similar from one to next in terms of character ability. They could only vary in the spells they prayed for, and those available to pray for were the same for all clerics. They were at least more diverse than five Fighters of Thieves, but not so much as five Magic-Users. Regardless, none of those early classes had the diversity in character build of later editions.
That is how it really was in the beginning. The vast diversity between characters, and library of books needed to support it, came with WotC.
Your knowledge of early A/D&D is sorely lacking.
No dis to you directly, but if you ran a party of 5 clerics, in AD&D 1st Edition, and they were all basically the same, you were playing with some pretty unimaginative people.
To use a grand example of this, in DDO, they had/have a group call called R.O..G.U.E which was a group of Thief/Rogue class Enthusiasts that would build all kinds of various and challenging Rogue classes, mixes, and then set off to achieve some, really fun challenges that would set for themselves.
In this case, one of the challenges was an All Rogue shroud (Before Epic Levels) Shroud was an end game raid, that took several distinct roles, like Tank, Off Tank, Crystal, Healer, Kiter, etc, etc.
So doing this raid with just a bunch of squishy rogue builds, was a challenge, no joke, it was in fact a challenge, all in it's own right.
Well to the surprise of no one, involved in the All Rogue Shroud, I made a rogue tank, and tanked the boss, with a rogue/fighter split.
Now I want to be very clear, to be that kind of Rogue that could face tank a Pit Fiend, I had to make some serious trade offs to my sneaky/stealthy and trappy kind of things, but, that did not change that I was still the kind the rogue that could go toe to toe with a raid boss.
We had healers, we had kiters, we had an off tank, we had ranged, we had all the very specific, and needed traditional roles of the raid filled, by rogues and rogue hybrids.
Which IMHO is the best way to design a game.
Role Should Not Equal Class
Class Should Not Equal Role
But you can still have distinct roles and classes.
Allow players to make what they want, and you would be amazed how many people might make healers, if you didn't force them into a smock, give them a holy club of the holy suck as a weapon, and tell them all they can do is cast healing spells.
Allow that person playing a Monk to function as a healer, a while making it a challenge, but also making it doable, you would amazed how many people might be more than willing to rise up to various roles.
While no doubt you would have many sticks in the mud, that would cling to Class = Role, the real beauty would be the people willing to push the limits of what they can do with what they have to play with.
Yeah, I've been playing since AD&D 1st Ed. and Basic were the only versions, and nobody bothered with Basic at least where I lived. My experience is abundant.
Clerics had the advantage of being able to change up their spells through prayer which gave them remarkable flexibility in that sole regard, Otherwise the class abilities of each and every AD&D 1st Ed. Cleric were exactly the same at the same level.
Every other class had less ongoing flexibility, and other than the Magic-User had far less potential diversity. Fighters and Thieves were all carbon copies mechanically as their fellows at the same level.
Compared to the snowflake blizzard that has enveloped D&D from 3rd Ed. onward, none of these classes, including the Cleric, come anywhere close to the degree of diversity of their modern counterparts.
Yes, a party of five AD&D 1st Ed. Clerics could orchestrate their prayers to have a wide variety of spells available. The same could be done by five D&D Clerics in the more modern editions I assume, but they could also be diverse in the many other layers of differentiation that exploded with 3rd Ed. and beyond.
These classes simply aren't in the same ballpark from back then to now.
DDO I can enjoy, but I will never be able to say the same of D&D 3.5 Ed. that it is loosely related to. It essentially distills the fun from the excessive bloat of the 3.5 system.
Dungeon Masters Guide
Monster Manual
Fiend Folio
Monster Manual II
Deities and Demigods
Oriental Adventures
Unearthed Arcana
Manual of the Planes
Dungeoneers Survival Guide
Wilderness Survival Guide
Grayhawk
Dragonlance
That... seems like a lot of rules, and resources, and money spent by broke ass kids, just to hear how all classes were the same.
Honestly, it's been like 30+ years since I played AD&D first edition, so, if that was how you all rolled, then , is what it is, hopefully you still have the books, that would be novel, I lost all my books and dragon mags in a flood decades ago, but I recall it all being a lot more dynamic than all fighters being the same.
With that said.
DDO, does make it a lot easier to build and customize your character, I have always wondered why with all the modern power we have with modern games, that the character builds became more and more simplistic, you would think they would allow complexity, as opposed to locking things, down to the point that in some games, race, class, weapon, armor, and even gender are all locked into a single path.
Always thought that Online gaming would make games like DDO the norm, as opposed to the outliner.
When it comes to PvE it feels like there is a lot of different classes that do similar things.
You got dps warriors, rogues, monks and they stand in melee and deal damage. You got the ranged casters and hunters, they mostly do the same. You got the priest, cleric, druid and they all heal You got the different tanks, and its the same for them.
Balancing so many things that do similar things is messy and you often get a few best options and a few awful options. When you try to tune it, you get streamlining that removes what's unique.
Since I'm a raider that went back into tbc classic and soon entering wotlk there's such a huge powergap between optimal and suboptimal setups for tbc. In wotlk you still have classes/specs that are better but the gaps just ain't as big and more forgiving for raiding. TBC kinda sucks with the whole "bring five shamans, give mages a battery, make sure that melee gets full buffs" approach and when you are in a group without the buffs you just ends up sucking.
As someone that primarily plays healers, I do like that all 4 healers have quite different toolsets and strength and a combination is better than just bringing 5 healers of the same class.
AD&D is the molehill to the later edition mountains.
In our personal games, players needed the PHB. Our DM also used the DMG of course, and the MM, FF, and MMII situationally though we could have easily gotten by with only one of the monster books. He also used Deities and Demigods sporadically, depending on the campaign. Everything else was of our own making.
I still have my AD&D PHB and coincidentally just starting playing again with some of the same fellows and a few others after a lengthy break. This is being run by a different DM so I have no idea what all he uses in terms of books other than his mentioning that he only uses the Monster Manual and character creation was confined to that in the PHB. He also has his own homebrew setting so nothing related to published ones will need to be referenced.
Computers allow for all kinds of complexity so it certainly could have gone that way. The thing is, most people aren't big fans of complexity. Generally the simpler, and therefore easier, things are to use the more they catch on.
That simplicity doesn't need to be confining, either. Builds are far more complex in DDO than ESO but that doesn't prevent characters of the latter from being diverse and able to fulfill any role regardless of class.
I could be wrong, again, been a few decades, I think 3.x was also the intro to the D20 System as well, which further refined things to allow for more playing and less rules lawyering.
Also saw the start of other systems like Pathfinder.
But in any case, I stand by what I said, making a game where players can be dynamic, are not locked into neat little box, where the encounter may have roles, where a tank might be a needed, or some such, but, that tank is not locked down to just Fighters, or Paladins, and there is room, for, well, as I said, for some people that may have a passion for playing Frontal Assault Melee, to make a Rogue that can Face Tank a Pit Fiend, while being healed by another Rogue, a reality of the game.
Make no mistake, that kind of stuff takes a lot of work and gear, but I think that is what makes a great game where it is not handed to you, but you can make it happen.
DDO is simple enough that if you started, you could play with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
But for players that wanted more, wanted a deep game, wanted to see how far they could push the limits of their class and build, and go down that rabbit hole, to the point that the Healer, Tank, and CC are all Rogues.
DDO puts that out there as well.
And I think a lot of games would do well to learn from that kind of mechanic of character building.
It's as shallow or deep as you want to make it.
Wish more games were made like that.
I loathe what WotC has done to D&D since they dug their claws into it.
To be fair, AD&D did have more books than I recalled. Just because our group didn't use a good number of them doesn't void them, so I appreciate that correction. But it never got anywhere close to WotC has pumped out, never mind the glut from companies from their open D20 thing, whatever it was called.
Anyway...
This is clearly something I'm biased on and get "triggered" over as they say these days. D20 provided an opportunity for new games and ideas that may not have otherwise seen the light of day, so I pretty much have to give WotC credit for that. Blech.
DDO isn't simple from a character design point of view even for a basic Cleric which the player will find out soon enough as the increasing number of intricacies that must be considered are discovered.
By the time I got off the starting island the last time I gave it a go I had more clickies on my bars than half of the abilities of an entire ESO build, never mind the few class abilities and other assorted bits that will fill the remainder. All of that is just the tip of the iceberg, so even at it's most basic DDO is not simple, not by a long shot. Goodness knows what even that would like at 20. So... many... buttons... no doubt.
And all of that is nothing compared to what it can be.
Perhaps your familiarity with the game is such your awareness of how quickly daunting the game can be to newcomers, especially those with no D&D background whatsoever I imagine. I was fortunate enough to have some grounding knowledge.
MMORPG players are lucky DDO is still around as it really does offer a lot you can't quite get elsewhere. Sure, in ESO I can make a character with heavy stealth that gets bonus damage when attacking out of it and pick the locks of random treasure chests scattered about solely for that purpose, but it will never be anything close to a DDO Thief, and even if it was the game world wouldn't support that intricacy in play.
In ESO there are no hidden traps to be detected and disarmed. There are no locked doors sealing off dungeon areas until picked. No secret doors are available to be spotted by those so skilled or racially gifted. The same applies to the unique abilities of other classes how they affect and facilitate play. That kind of detail isn't there, or in most fantasy MMORPGs really.
That aspect of DDO also makes grouping perhaps even more vital than many of it's fellows. It's not just a trinity that must be kept in mind, but also an unrivalled buffet of other elements that need to variously be considered depending on what is being gone up against.
Yep, we're lucky to have it, and hopefully it will endure for a good while yet as there are no close substitutes to resort to should it vanish.