As a life-long gamer and career programmer/analyst, I have some strong opinions on the current state of on-line roleplaying games, and where I feel the next generation of games should look to improve on the existing offerings. This is the first in what I hope to be a series of editorials examining facets of design that I feel could be significantly improved. (Consider yourself warned...)
I grew up in the 70's, the era in which traditional roleplaying games first emerged and developed into a viable pastime. The emergence of the PC into the marketplace, along with CRPGs like Wizardry and Ultima around the same period, fired the imaginations of my entire circle of friends, and I am sure, many others: "imagine what kind of worlds we could explore if we could connect all of our computers, and all those others, together..." Well, the dream has become a reality, but the rosy visions I held as a teen have yet to be realized, twenty years later. Why is this?
Until now, the majority of the development effort in on-line games has been dedicated to addressing the technological issues: better graphics, reducing lag, etc. With offerings such as EverQuest, Asheron's Call, and the somewhat older Ultima Online, I believe these issues have been addressed to the extent that is possible within the existing hardware/networking framework. What's left to innovate?
A lot.
The first subsystem which next-gen MMORPG designers should re-evaluate is their game design. No, not code format, or interface layout (although that needs work, too), or setting definition (another sore point), but the simple game mechanics which provide the foundation for their entire application.
To date, every MMORPG I have seen has been modeled after the Dungeons and Dragons system paradigm. This simple and seemingly innocent decision has, in my opinion, created many of the headaches these systems suffer from to this day. What seems to have been overlooked is that the game mechanics are as important as the technical design in creating a robust and enjoyable application, and must be tuned to the audience at hand.
Using D&D as a basis for an MMORPG is analogous to using a duplex blueprint to build a high-rise apartment complex. At first glance, why not? Just stack the duplexes one on top of the other... cut this off, nail these together, tack this on one side... and it should work out just fine. And does: until the first wind storm, earthquake, or fire.
A serious examination of the D&D system, or even long experience in play, should reveal that it is not really meant for use in an environment like an MMORPG. As just one example: ask any GM whether you can bring your second level cleric into her high level campaign (or vice versa). The barely suppressed "wince and shudder" should give you some idea as to the difficulties involved in allowing such a thing in directly moderated play. Now understand that MMORPGs do this routinely, and in a basically unsupervised setting.
Why doesn't the D&D model work well for this type of game?
Because it was designed for a different purpose.
Dungeons and Dragons is designed for small group interactions, and really assumes equal play time and uniform advancement for all participants, as any GM who has tried to run a varied level campaign will tell you.
Now, some will certainly claim at this point that their favorite system is not based on D&D. Look at the skills. Look at the attributes. Look at the spell system. (Look at the window dressing.) The central issues in this matter, and the subsystems that cause all the difficulties, are "hit points" and "experience points". The remainder of this document will focus on the problems realted to the D&D hit point paradigm.
To my mind, PK (player killing) issues are a direct result of using the D&D "hit point" model in MMORPGs. The anonymity and anarchy of the Internet provide enough encouragement for anti-social behavior: do we really have to sanction it further by allowing PCs to become relatively invulnerable to in-character retaliation for such acts? That is essentially what the geometric progression hit point model does. An inexperienced character already hits less often, has poor equipment, little magic, etc., let's give the grandmaster 50 times the raw staying power as well! Any game system that offers an unarmed, unarmored, but high level PC a chance to just literally punch an inexperienced, but armed and armored PC to death will have serious PK issues, no matter what "social" system is put in place: and that is precisely what the D&D hit point model allows.
So what do I suggest, you might well ask. I would suggest a far more balanced and consistent hit point progression model, one in which long and successful effort might yield a hit point score of double, perhaps triple, that of the newbie, but no more. I would suggest implementation of some form of "critical hit" and debilitating injury system as well, (ala I.C.E. Rolemaster), making it both far more likely that _some_ lasting but non-lethal form of damage will occur to both parties in a duel, and raising some shade of the old "I might get _killed_ out here" sense of urgency which is so lacking in PvP for high level characters under current systems. I would suggest that character skill, acquired equipment, and player ingenuity play a more equitable role in determining survivability in combat, both PvP and otherwise.
In brief, I would suggest something like this: characters are rated for "maximum hit points" based on race, constitution, and physical size. They are given a percentage of this maximum score (30 to 50 percent) based on the type of pursuits they choose to favor, magicians getting a smaller starting percentage than warriors, for example. This percentage would then increase with time and proper types of experience, similar to any other "skill". The maximum score itself might be increased in small amounts, in any of several ways, and would not need to be an ultimate maximum in any case: characters might be allowed to advance even beyond their "maximum" hp score at an ever slower rate of progress. Couple this with a robust "injury" system, tuned to be far more likely in PvP than against NPC creatures, and you should have a system that discourages widespread PKing without arbitrarily limiting player choice. In the vulgar cant, the bullies will lay off, because they won't be quite so sure they can "win".
Note what else this does: creatures do not have to range from pathetic to devastating to provide an appropriate range of challenges. In the scenario I present above, creatures such as giants and dragons can be truly fearsome challenges to be met with cunning, forethought, and preferably some trustworthy backup, simply because they will be able to take so much more sheer punishment than the character itself, not because their base attack damage has been tuned to a level that would pulverize the random newbie character.
Finally, this type of system should indirectly encourage greater interaction between players, since yes, even a raw newbie just might be able to help you out, if (when) you get yourself in trouble. However, the deafening silence in MMORPGs is far more related to experience points than hit points. That's a topic for my next missive...
Your feedback on this and related issues would be quite welcome. Any comments on this or other ramblings of mine can be directed to cshuber@primenet.com. Chao for nao...
Craig Huber
aka Damiano Pyrotechnica
aka Tourges (EQ Prexus)
etc...
