« The Tricky Business of Predicting the Future | Main | AvA no DB »

Aug 06, 2004

Comments

1.

Mob AI in MMORPGs tends to discourage heroism due to its inflexibility. While a DM can put this missing element into a monster in pen and paper, there's a part of MMORPGs where this kind of innovation, daring, observation and exploitation of dynamic psychological elements, aka heroism, abounds.

It's called PvP, and if you're looking for meaningful conflict, it's the only way to go.

2.

I'm not so sure this counts as heroism in the larger scale of the game, but back in my UO days (I know this is the only game I reference, but it's the only one I spent a good 4-5 years playing religiously) I got into some rough encounters as a mid-level warrior, and was bailed out by 'noob' mages. In some dungeons I'd get cornered by too many foes where I couldn't get out, and a mage would come running by, see me in trouble, and come to my rescue with a couple heals, armor spells, and bless, then begin throwing low level spells at the monsters to get them off my back so I could recover. Herosim? In my mind, yes. If it weren't for some of these newer, noob characters coming to my aid in times like this, i would have definitely died.

I'm twisting a bit here, but when it comes to PvP aspects, herosim is a lot easier in MMORPGs. I've been in plenty of UO battles where my group was outnumbered vs. a stronger group of players, but due to strategy, that involved sacrificing a few of our members to get the advantage, we'd win. These people that sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the group could be considered heros, no?

3.

This is a great topic -- it goes directly to what people want out of an RPG (online or otherwise).

One of the things I've been grumbling about in SWG is that it's not possible for any individual player to have a Hero's Journey when every player can be a hero. Or as I've started putting it, "When everyone's a hero, who needs heroes?"

It's like the old joke of calling a blank canvas "White Horse In Snow." When there's no background from which the subject can be distinct, the subject can't be resolved. When any player can be a "hero," the term loses its meaning.

At least part of the problem for online multiplayer games is that developers can't know beforehand who's going to contribute to their game in ways they want. So the rules of the game have to allow every player the same chance to reach the pinnacle of success (however the game defines that). And so every player does, and the result is sameness. Attempts at creating a "high-level game" to offer finer gradations among masters just postpones the inevitable.

Another aspect of the problem is that there's a qualitative difference between running a group of <10 people through a highly customizable adventure and letting thousands of people make their own adventures (because there's no way to provide individualized content for everyone).

Finally, heroism requires real risk. The D&D party I led back in the day progressed from the wimpiest of 1st-level characters to retiring after conquering their own kingdom in Greyhawk, and had the scars to show for it. My character lost an eye and had a big purple mark on one hand; another character actually went mad (and was played that way to perfection). Another important character in our group was killed -- and didn't come back. Our characters were allowed to suffer pain and loss, and our successes were bittersweet. We felt like heroes because our ultimate victory was never guaranteed -- we had to earn it, and paid a price doing so.

So, if these criticisms are fair, what can be done for online games? Here are some suggestions:

1. Characters must be allowed to suffer real loss, up to and including permadeath. Players hate this, but it's necessary or "hero" becomes an empty word.

2. Occasional mass events. There aren't enough developers to customize heroic opportunities for every player in a large MMORPG. But big fights (preferably with some story purpose) can be arranged if server limits allow them. And every participant who survives will have a heroic story to tell. "Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars/And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's Day.'"

3. Professional specialization. If you're the only cleric in a small D&D group, you're going to be the greatest cleric in the world when you retire. But when thousands of martial artists and traders and armorsmiths are equally skilled in an online game, there's not enough differentiation to feel that what your character does actually matters. When the game skill system is designed so that no more than, say, 5-10 players out of every thousand can be recognized as "best" in some particular skillset, and when there are enough distinct skillsets for every player -- given time and effort -- to become one of those top 5-10 players in something, then it's possible to stand out (which is part of being a hero).

4. Reputation + fame among NPCs. This is a simple mechanic, but it works. Tracking reputation (whether you're considered "good" or "bad") and fame (how widely your name is known) provides a practical means of distinguishing heroic figures from regular players. It makes some developers uncomfortable as it smacks of approving of a class system, which runs counter to modern liberal beliefs... but as with economic systems, some degree of inequality turns out to be necessary to promote motion within the system. (And of course notoriety in a heroic milieu is not always safe....)

An online game that took away these four lessons from tabletop RPGs could be a place where heroes live.

--Flatfingers

4.

I find it interesting that despite every MMORPG's belief and insistence that we're joining "a world where we can be heroes" in one way or another, something like this is almost always inevitably sidelined for the power treadmilling grinds.

It's a real pity.

A problem that perhaps stems from or creates this issue is the fact that many online gamers aren't exactly RPG fanatics who froth at the mouth when someone isn't "In Character" all the time (if at all), but are just there for fun.

The easiest way to create such worlds where heroe's can express themeselves would be to, perhaps, create smaller worlds of say, a few hundred. That opens up more easily customizable content and easier storylines. But that's not really possible for companies.

The hardest way is of course to hire enough GM's so that there can always be random events occuring in the game.

Perhaps there's a page to be taken from those "unauthorized" UO shards after all....

5.

It's not really a resource issue nor game design issue. I think it has to do with people issues, the symptoms for which may have already indicated.

Also, the fact that most players are not in it for the heroics or are in it for the casual fun does not preclude that designers can deliver an environment where heroics can take place, and by definition are meaningful.

Recall the narration for Tory, the recent summer flick. It speaks of the desire for immortality; not to live for eternity, but to be remembered throughout eternity. I have been thinking about the desire for this type of immortality as another form of Hero Journey.

On Dictionary.com the first usage of Hero is “In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.” The three distinctions are ‘endowed with’, ‘celebrated for’, and ‘favored by’.

The second usage is “A person noted for feats of courage or nobility or purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life”. The three distinctions are ’courage’, ‘nobility’ and ‘purpose’ with an emphasis on risking or sacrificing own life.

The third usage is “A person noted for special achievement in a particular field”. The distinction is ‘special achievement’.

Staarkhand points to PvP as a mode to gain special achievements in MMORPG treadmill progression: Achilles would agree. Bart points to ‘noob’ courage and purposeful sacrifice: the countless dead soldiers of wars would agree. Flatfingers points to reputation and fame among NPCs: Homer would agree.

Heroism in MMORPG appears to be predicated on at least the first and third usage of Hero whereas the second usage “doesn’t matter if no one remembers”-it still occurred, but no one remembers. Thus, heroism is based on recognition.

Developers already recognizes players that exhibited heroism in- and out-of-game. Player recognizes each other via fan websites and fan fiction (however fan fiction dilutes recounts of actual fan accomplishments).

I think one measure developers can take to promote "heroism" is to institionally recognize player accomplishments and institionally help broadcast heroic deeds.

A developer-sponsored "Book of Heroic Deeds" that documents true player heroics in the land of X will be worth the $19.95 price tag and a cross-sell product for the developer.

Even an syndicated press release that highlights the fact that heroics are occuring everyday and gives an example of such would worth more than the time put into writing the press release.

The above two ideas address external recognition, but recognition also have to occur in-game. Flatfingers' fourth point address this area.

"tapestry-of-fiction stretched over systems built around socialization ponds and treadmills" is great, but it's the recounts that is meaningful.

I, personally, really don't want the developer to set up situations where I can be a "hero," I just want the opportunity to exhibit heroism and be recognized for it. The small "thank you" from a greatful NPC or PC is great, but recognition among peers and recount of deeds to non-peers would be muuuuuch better :)

6.

"Reputation + fame among NPCs."

This does not apply heroism. This implies grinding faction points. Any system like this *will* be gamed. Then you enter this bizarro world where the people with high fame are specifically *not* the heroes. UO had the most humerous case of this - "fame" dropped on death. High fame characters tended to be cowards who ran at the first sign of trouble.

Reputation and fame among PCs is the essential quality of heroism.

- Brask Mumei

7.

PvP isn't the answer. A few weeks ago in Anarchy Online, one of our allies was under attack. In AO, you pretty much can't participate in PvP from levels 150 to 215 or so as much higher level characters can attack you. I was a level 180 something, but still showed up for the fight (along with quite a few other lower levels players).

We died. Alot. And couldn't do much except provide a distraction until more high level players showed up for the defense. I died at least 10 times and didn't scratch the enemy once.

We did manage to keep the enemies busy (no one can resist an easy target, even if they should be taking down towers instead of low-level players). And eventually some high level players arrived and the base was saved.

Was that heroic? A heroic effort maybe, but it didn't make me all giddy and tingly with joy. I knew that, regardless of my actions or the justness of my cause, there was basically nothing I could do. If I was high enough level to affect the outcome, then my actions would not have been heroic.

Compare that to an event just a few days ago in City of Heroes. I was in a team in a mission. We were doing fine until someone accidentally got the attention of two groups of mobs. My teammates (who were mostly squishy Blasters) began falling.

I could have run away and lived, but I was mad at the nasty Circle of Thorns for hurting the complete strangers I happened to be with. So I used every inspiration I had and took a stand.

Surprisingly, I won. It was more luck than skill (and a few health inspirations dropping during the fight), but I managed to kill two full groups (perhaps 30 mobs total) of yellow/orange enemies.

Was that heroic? It felt good to win against such odds, but it didn't require as much emotional effort as going back to a PvP base to get killed over and over. I felt... awesome, but more like a superhero with super powers, not like a real hero putting themselves in danger for a good cause.

So what is my point? I'm not sure I have one... But perhaps some effort could be focused on making the risk vs. reward balance the emotional investment, not the odds. I can think of algorithms to detect simple "heroism"--players who won't give up or who save a party at the risk (or cost) of their own lives. But even if you can detect heroism, what can you do about it?

Heroes in real life are often rewarded with perma-death. Or severe injury. Or just another mission. But to feel heroic in a game, it seems like there ought to be some reward or at least recognition... But would a reward ruin it? If there's a predictable reward, everyone will try to be heroic, and what then?

8.

I saw many, many, many instances of true heroism on UO. People struggling to defend Kazola's tavern. People founding governments and attempting to protect their towns from the barbarians at the gate. People sacrificing everything in order to rescue a friend. People willingly taking on the mantle of being despised and vilified in order to defend what they believed in (via the aforementioned fame mechanic, in fact).

I also saw many instances of villainy. And I am unsure how much heroism you can get without the villainy. All the examples I can think of were driven by conflicts between these two, and were enabled by PvP.

A tough question I would pose is whether it's worth having any villainy at all, in order to get that sense of heroism. Another tough question I would pose is whether most players give a rat's ass about meaningful conflict and opportunities for heroism.

9.

The D&D level and experience system discourages taking risks. Its is possible to reach the highest levels of skill without ever taking any risks.

A Runequest-like system, in which a level-1 hobbit child has at least a chance of hitting the greatest of enemies with a critical crosbow bolt to the head, has more flavor to it; more gritty reality. It could be you being hit because of your lack of caution, or it could be you doing the hitting and taking out the dragon in a single hit.

Its the one-hit-kill games that give true fear to the players, and without fear there can be no heroism. Of course, being killed needs to mean a substantial penalty - like a 20 minute wait before playing again and maybe permanent loss of abilities (crippling) - not just a simple respawn.

10.

Isn't the concept behind an MMORPG the polar opposite of legendary games like Ultima IV, where you were the Avatar, the greatest man on earth? And in every great computer RPG I can remember, getting past level 3 felt like you were transcending everyone else in your pathetic little village and becoming heroes. It's a lot different from walking around in a world of people yelling "I just leveled up to 50."


11.

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but what about MUDs?? I played them addictively in college and they were of course the original MMPORPGs.

I think the pay-to-play situation has reduced the capacity for players to _care_ about being heroic in the modern worlds (hehe, get it MODERN). Anyway, when I played MUDs the goal of the Immortals was to kill us, to trap us like racoons with the lure of shiny treasure so we'd go into a near-death trap like zone and get SMASHED by some unstoppable mob. We'd then spend the next week gaining power to go take it out.

Yeah there were balance issues and all of the predecessors to things you see today (i.e. treadmills) but people were far more willing to risk it all, die over and over and potentially *GASP* LOSE ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT! Which was of course, worse than temp-death.

I think that because people are paying to play they expect a certain timeline to advancement and of course they base this against those who are higher-level than them. Which of course leads to the ridiculous competitions of pleveling. Role-playing vs. P-leveling is what this debate is really about. There were many times on a MUD when I'd be leading a group into a dangerous area, we'd get ambushed and I'd make a stand while my group retreated-escaped-ranaway thus sacrificing my own character (and some gear most likely).

Heros have been and always will be those who are willing to risk losing something (up to and including their life permanently) for the "greater good" of those around them. People are less likely to do that if they are paying a per-month fee and loss of level, equipment or other just equals time, which equals money.

I think that therefore games such as Neverwinter Nights played in a LAN fashion are far more interesting and game designers should start to think about putting the Game Master back into Gaming. If you have that human GM pulling the strings from behind the curtain and there isn't a perceived need to compete with other characters and "get your moneys worth" then people will be more heroic.

Ultimately in any setting, virtual or otherwise, opportunities exist to be heros. As always, the reason they are so revered is because those who are willing to suffer that loss are rare, not because the opportunity doesn't exist.

12.

How about the flip-side of this question: Where are the villians? All the principles of Heroism - opportunity, reputation, risk - also should applies to villainy - perhaps more so. In EVE, it's the villains everyone knows. From the lone pirates that everyone knows to scamper away from to the power-mad corp president who plunged half the galaxy into war, it's the villains who add real context to the game and provide opportunities for heros to stop them.

Cris

13.

Lack of customization and scarring is a major hindrance to heroism in an MMO. Death is an inconvenience, nobody likes to risk it when they already know the safe way to handle every encounter. "Okay, we need a tank, a healer, some blasters... sorry, party's full, we don't need a bard."

There do exist minor, isolated instances of heroism, but not in the every day levelling & farming... Characters who, when their party is jumped by mobs they can't handle, draw the attention of the mobs then run like hell, waiting until their group is safe before using a teleport of some sort (which you rarely survive long enough to cast). Risky, but sort of heroic.

In quests/missions there are some opportunities for heroism. A buddy and I in FFXI took out the dragon for Rank 3 without any outside help. It came down to the wire, but it was a rush.

But then again, if we had failed, so what? "Man, that sucks, let's get back here and try again."

14.

You have to be doing something that feels like it matters to be a hero. Being the 1700th person to slay a dragon is not impressive or heroic. Most of the large MMOs don't create an environment in which there is -anything- heroic to do.

15.

Unfortunately, MMOs exist in a state of forced egalitarianism. No single character of level X can be significantly better than any other character of level X. Likewise, a character of level X in any given MMO can have any chance of challenging an NPC of significantly higher level. To be able to do so would be "broken" and "exploitative."

The best way to bring heroism back into MMOs is to reduce the reliance on statistics and increase the reliance on player skill. In Counterstrike or similar FPSes, a particularly brave player might go out on a ledge, draw a bead on the enemy carrying the flag, and deliver a head-shot from a nearly impossible distance, saving the game. However, in MMOs, range, accuracy, and damage are all governed by virtual dice, eliminating the possibility of a player ever pulling off an amazing but statistically unlikely feat through a combination of skill and bravery.

16.

It does not seem to me that there is a clear definition of a "hero" for the purposes of this discussion. I'll use the term hero to mean "one by whose actions the world is changed for the better by some measurable amount." Clearly, there are faults in this definition (most so with the inherent subjectivity), but it'll serve for my argument.

That being said, there is very little heroism, despite all the trappings of what is considered on some fairly lowest common denominator level to be heroic (fighting most Horrible and Wickede Beasties, going forth on Quests, etc.). This raises a contradiction, one that amuses me on its surface level when I think about it: why is it that an environment clearly based on tales of heroism and valour has greedy, selfish, Hobbesian critters running around where the Great Noble Heroes should be? Undoubtedly, this can be connected to the systems underlying the game and the motives attached to player action. What evidence I've seen has the majority of players interested primarily in the optimization of their character and the accompanying accumulation of wealth, all done as fast as possible. This is far outside the realm of developers to change. The rules of the MMO also serve to bar the role of the so-called Classical Hero (heroic character with tremendous skills). In the name of fairness, every player has the chance to become the strongest character in the game. Because there are so many players who consider this a valuable goal, and because they gather at the most rewarding spawns, one has to resort to greedy actions or a considerably longer, more tedious process. Most players will opt for the former. I will admit that the exact dynamics of this scenario can change depending on the systems of the game.

So, we see one reason for why people don't go out of their way to act heroic (it's unprofitable or tedious, essentially). At the same time, most MMOs do not permit for an environment where much heroism can occur. They provide static, predictable worlds. Fighting a dragon just means that one of a potentially infinite number of identical dragons that would mind their own business unless you went to it first is dead, soon to be replaced by another identical dragon and you have a bit more money and exp from it. Great act of heroism, that is. MMOs are generally about individual advancement. If not about individual advancement, then they're about group advancement. All the same kettle of fish. Perhaps the only way that one can be heroic is to save another person from the mild annoyance of dying to monsters, or the mild annoyance of being PKed, especially in games where death does not result in appreciable item loss. While this action can be considered heroic, it's on the par of letting a harried and tired person take the cab you flagged down. Not heroic, but a nice thing to do, but can be mistaken for heroic because of the fantastic elements in the visual aspect of the game.

At the same time, I see a problem that runs through the entire discussion here, revolving around the definition of hero applied. We include in the definition of hero that he/she/it/whatever must be a fighter, whether good or bad. While, given the way MMOs work, it'll be even rarer to find a hero outside combat actions, why is that concept not even discussed here?

Finally, is there a need for heroism in MMOs at all? It has been simply accepted that these games require heroes. I personally account this to a pre-existing bias for heroism that arises from D&D experiences or from single-player games. However, does heroism have a place? Why or why not?

Oh. And hello everyone. This is my first post. I'll try to make it my not-last.

17.

Wondersaurus> Finally, is there a need for heroism in MMOs at all? It has been simply accepted that these games require heroes. I personally account this to a pre-existing bias for heroism that arises from D&D experiences or from single-player games. However, does heroism have a place? Why or why not?

I don't there is a need for heroism in MMOs and I don't think the designers focus their designs for it. They are designing character accomplishment games and are designing for volume consumption: packaged 'level' and 'mission' experiences. It's a fast food experience, but it sells.

However, there is a DESIRE for heorism, especially in the fantasy genre. One obvious reason is the D&D experiences you noted.

Heroism do have a place in fantasy genre MMOs, but less so in others, because this aspect entertains a person's fantasies of a different world where even a simple hobbit can carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Many people like is archetype story arc.

We should talk about fantasy romances in MMOs next: the desire to be the knight (Sir or Dame) in shinning armor, saving a handsome/beautiful person and living happily ever after :)

Frank

18.


Staarkhand points to PvP as a mode to gain special achievements in MMORPG treadmill progression: Achilles would agree. Bart points to ‘noob’ courage and purposeful sacrifice: the countless dead soldiers of wars would agree. Flatfingers points to reputation and fame among NPCs: Homer would agree.

Heroism in MMORPG appears to be predicated on at least the first and third usage of Hero whereas the second usage “doesn’t matter if no one remembers”-it still occurred, but no one remembers. Thus, heroism is based on recognition.

...

Reputation and fame among PCs is the essential quality of heroism.

Recognition, reputation based on what currency? Is "reputation and fame" encoded as, say, "reputation and fame points" sufficient? (My suspicion is not).

Or are we talking about an entirely different currency, where the "story", the "narrative" itself is the coin of this realm? This would, however, imply a game world where heroic stories / narratives are not just told, but they are listened to. Community could be one ingredient, but perhaps game design would need to reinforce.

I don't think publicity is sufficient. How many of you play MMOGs with an ongoing back-story with writers beavering to update... and occasionally players are mentioned (usually as victors at some contest or joust)... I'm in one, and I find it hard to care... too disconnected to my world.


I also saw many instances of villainy. And I am unsure how much heroism you can get without the villainy. All the examples I can think of were driven by conflicts between these two, and were enabled by PvP.

Is it villany for villany's sake, or is it "villany for passion?" Same for PvP. Villany and PvP can stoke passions, and perhaps sufficient to occasionally invoke the heroic invention, but are they necessary? Consider the AD&D example cited - neither villany or PvP was explicit. To my mind, the key ingredient in that circumstance was being swept up on a 2 month storyline and then taking a dramatic "whacking" at the end: so much time and energy bestows importance upon the event, and the whacking makes it memorable.



Unfortunately, MMOs exist in a state of forced egalitarianism. No single character of level X can be significantly better than any other character of level X. Likewise, a character of level X in any given MMO can have any chance of challenging an NPC of significantly higher level. To be able to do so would be "broken" and "exploitative."

Is this the problem per se? If one's view of heroism (nodding to Frank's and Wondersaurus accounting of many definitions) is "extraordinary achievement from ordinary people" then while egalitarianism may be the root of other evils (e.g. character homogenization), it may not be the culprit here?


A Runequest-like system, in which a level-1 hobbit child has at least a chance of hitting the greatest of enemies with a critical crosbow bolt to the head, has more flavor to it; more gritty reality. It could be you being hit because of your lack of caution, or it could be you doing the hitting and taking out the dragon in a single hit.

All mortals have a shot at greatness, and are too, vulnerable to catastrophy? I'd love that game. But goes back to Raph's point:


Another tough question I would pose is whether most players give a rat's ass about meaningful conflict and opportunities for heroism.

Frank's point on this seems reasonable:


I don't there is a need for heroism in MMOs and I don't think the designers focus their designs for it. They are designing character accomplishment games and are designing for volume consumption: packaged 'level' and 'mission' experiences. It's a fast food experience, but it sells.

However, there is a DESIRE for heorism, especially in the fantasy genre. One obvious reason is the D&D experiences you noted.

19.

In one form or another, most MMO gamers must have been exposed to a D&D encounter in order to be drawn to a game. Even games which bank on their names (eg: WoW, SWG) have some base in a D&D manner. Jedi in one world, psychic in another.

>>>I don't think publicity is sufficient. How many of you play MMOGs with an ongoing back-story with writers beavering to update... and occasionally players are mentioned (usually as victors at some contest or joust)... I'm in one, and I find it hard to care... too disconnected to my world.

While that might be the case for some, that can't be it for all. And perhaps it is exactly because we're all lethargic and too used to the status quo that we're not willing to give it a try. Rome wasn't built in a day, and perhaps if something on these lines were more widely, or regularly, implemented with better ideas (perhaps regular weekly quests that can be crafted quickly on the fly by GM's that eventually get made into the weekly news update?) it might work out.

I remember a simple GM quest wherein more than two dozen heroe's (of various classes and levels, for the good man who mentioned our nodding only to fighters) were sitting in a tavern recounting tales, listening wide eyed, when the GM, possessing an NPC, staggered in and shouted "ORCS! AT THE GATES!" and promptly killed the poor man.

Needless to say, the scads of orcs spawned in at the gate proved much too much for most of the (weak) warriors, leaving it to the poorly clad mages to mount up several walls of stone and fire while the men hit the res spot. That is, until someone got the brilliant idea of loading up one poor soul (We'll miss you Jemiyah) with a ton of Greater Explosion potions, running into the midst of the horde, and detonating.

Particularly memorable moment there... And one for the heroism books certainly.

Actually, something's just occured to me.

Do we want heroism in games because it's something we're missing, or is it because, well, we want to BOAST about it? Heroism really boils down to the immortality line mentioned aobve, and what better way then to have some great exploit which can be told to everyone?

20.

I think the problem is that everyone wants to be the hero, but most people aren't heros. We're mostly snivelling cowards that aren't even willing to hand over a cab to a obviously harried and distressed person.

That is why there should *NEVER* be in game rewards for "heroism". As soon as you reward it, you destroy it. Specifically, said snivelling cowards will start to game the system to become heroic, and their actions will quickly cease to be heroic.

Fame and reputation from fellow PCs is thus how I judge heros. You are highly unlikely to ever be recognized across the server, but so what? You are also highly unlikely to be recognized by everyone in your home city.

I don't buy the argument that heroism of the sorts mentioned (holding off attackers, staying to face the danger rather than KOP) are irrelevant because they only represent a time loss. The heroism of D&D is even *less* relevant by that metric! In D&D, you know at the meta game level that if you die, you are not kicked from the group. You instead often get to return to the campaign with a new character, possibly buffed to match the current level of campaign. Further, you get a heroic story to tell.

- Brask Mumei

21.

Raph>I saw many, many, many instances of true heroism on UO.

And (unfortunately, imho) in those instances we saw the answer to your second question: No. The overwhelming majority of the persistent world market does not care one bit about the Heroic Journey. They want convenient, dependable foozle-bashing, and widget-gathering, nearly to the point of predetermined success.

Treadmills and penalties are but delaying tactics -- droning stanzas penned into a stale poem to give the illusion of challenge. A Heroic Journey is wasted on them, because they themselves have no interest in the world or its events; and that's the way they prefer it. Their entertainment comes at the meta-level of the mechanics; wholly outside the world and its denizens. They seek to clear numeric hurdles.

The silver lining is that most game players do not play these games. There may indeed be a market for the true villainy and heroism that is necessary for a Heroic Journey. There were a few logistical and balance flaws with the systems in UO, and perhaps with more parity in risk/reward we could reach out to these audiences.

Or maybe they're not there at all. In which case the answer to your first question is given: No. there's no point in allowing any villainy -- because there's no desire for true heroism.

The litmus test for player receptivity to any attempt at heroism seems fairly straightforward to me: no numbers. You'll alienate the core market with just those two words. Kill the meta-game, and we'll have our answer in the number of people who remain.

22.

It seems that the greatest problem with mmorpg's at the moment is the status quo. Many have said that to introduce heroic situations and deeds at the expense of 'the numbers' is to alienate the core market. But what of the people who do not play mmorpg's at the moment because all they see is mindless treadmills and dull, repetitive, unheroic 'gameplay'.

A world in which heroes and villains compete and are remembered is a far more interesting prospect, i think, and a more approachable one to outsiders. (Many people in my experience shun role playing because they see nothing but geeks looking up numbers in books and roling dice, missing the entire story/adventure aspect of the activity)

Anyway, as for the subject at hand. I'd like to see a system that encourages villainy. Include some really evil magic that players can use to make themselves more powerful at the expense of those around them. Allow players to raise armies of undead to march on all the nearby towns, looting them for their gold. You don't need gm's to create these situations, you can use the players' own greed to make the game more interesting. As said earlier, propper penalties for death, and the constant threat of it, even from lower level players would make the game world a far more interesting place.

Anyway, i have a lot more i'd like to say, but not the words to say it. And my boss is coming.

23.

I think MMORPGs do not need to pass Weasel's litmus test. I think heroics and villainy can develop within current character accomplishment designs. After all, most fantasy avatars are designed to be heroes and goes on the character accomplishment treadmill to be more powerful heroes.

Thus, by design, heroics already occurs everyday as character accomplishments: heroics of going on a repeatable quest to slay dragons and save the town. Not too meaningful, but still a heroic act.

So we come down to relative heroics. Where is the point where relative heroics become, for a lack of a better word, true heroics?

This leads to my original thought on the desire for immortality, to be recognized and revered throughout the ages with touching poems, moving songs, and haunting memorials (nod to Homeric ideals of epics).

I think this is the point where relative heroics (by the numbers) are completely immaterial and immortality of heroics or villainy is reached. Killing 100 more dragons than the next hero is relative heroics, but doing that (……) is truly heroic.

Thus, my response to Raph’s point: Another tough question I would pose is whether most players give a rat's ass about meaningful conflict and opportunities for heroism.

Not having meaningful conflict or opportunities for heroism is no major loss to most players, but having meaningful opportunities for heroism add greatly to the experience.

Most players of SWG are happy to live in the world of Star Wars, but many probably have dormant human desire to go beyond daily living and to be a part of something greater. If they come away the experience with a great story to tell, all the better :)

The Hero's Journey should be there; butonly true heroes will partake in that journey. Not having the journey because most people don't give a rat's ass just feels like something is missing.

Frank

24.

Frank>I think MMORPGs do not need to pass Weasel's litmus test.

To clarify, that test would simply be to see whether there were gamers who wanted Heroics, by removing anyone interested in the meta-game. I feel that most of the current market is intentionally looking for something of a graphical DIKU. (not that that's wrong, just that's its a clear preference) Gameplay approaching Heroism is fine with them, just so long as its never inconvenient or unexpected.
(which rules out Villainy, which rules out Heroism, imo)

Frank>I think heroics and villainy can develop within current character accomplishment designs.
But no game since early UO has had the capability for true Villainy.

DAoC presented a slightly distilled version of that gameplay, but changes after release removed any vested interest in the actual status of the us vs them (vs them) conflict. All that mattered was immediate personal gain. Their design actually created a disincentive to help the little guy.

Without true Villainy, Heroics loses quite a bit of its meaning. You're relative heroics are just a measure of 'accomplishment' through a series of sterilized trials. Anyone with sufficient time is going to do exactly what everyone who came before did. There's no choice, no risk, and no sacrifice.

You might have a warrior who 'takes one for the team' and sacrifices himself so his friends can flee. But is that heroic, or is that smart gameplay?

I don't think the sterilized theme park nature of a PvE game can provide heroism on the same scale as a game that allows for Villainy. Accomplishments in such a game can never be something that an individual is remembered for, because everyone with sufficient time will manage that accomplishment.

25.

"You might have a warrior who 'takes one for the team' and sacrifices himself so his friends can flee. But is that heroic, or is that smart gameplay?"

I'd say it's heroic, of the two choices. Sometimes it's *dumb* gameplay but it's not smart gameplay - not in the sense of leveling up faster, anyway. It might be smart in a human-networking sense if your friends take the chance to get away. It might be really smart in that sense if they then do the same for you in the future. But if you staying means everyone stays and gets killed - then it was a poor time to attempt heroics (if everyone tries to stay and be heroic... no one lives). The powergamers, though, wouldn't engage in that kind of behavior typically.

"I don't buy the argument that heroism of the sorts mentioned (holding off attackers, staying to face the danger rather than KOP) are irrelevant because they only represent a time loss. The heroism of D&D is even *less* relevant by that metric! In D&D, you know at the meta game level that if you die, you are not kicked from the group. You instead often get to return to the campaign with a new character, possibly buffed to match the current level of campaign. Further, you get a heroic story to tell."

I think Brask puts his finger on the inconsistency of the "there is no chance for heroism" talkers. In character, there's tons of heroism. Out of character, there isn't any - and this is true of both the MMOG and the D&D tabletop game. Why does the latter *feel* more heroic? Because people get into their character more. If people "lived" their character's adventures in online rpg's the way they do in tabletop ones - it'd be more immersive and the heroism would be more felt.

Couple reasons it isn't:
- No true choice. In a D&D game you can have your character do what they really would do, and the GM will reward you for that (playing in-character). In a MMOG you can do what the character would really do within the multiple-choice of the game - and be punished if that is not the optimal choice - or you can do what the game seems to want you to do (a railroading GM, that game.) I truly think this is the main reason.
- No ease of telling when people are in character/ out of character. In a face to face game, you can usually just *tell* by the expression, tone of voice, etc whether someone is saying a statement as their character or as the player. In online games I've been in that had successful immersive roleplay, you also could, due typically to everyone putting all OOC remarks in (( )) (doubled parentheses) or prefacing it with ooc: (or both). They could manage that because it was a convention maintained by the small group. In an online game, it is necessary to provide some such mechanism built into the game - and none I have seen ever has. Oh sure, some have an "ooc channel" but that's not at all what is needed - you need a way to mark any speech via any channel as "in character". Since users typically can configure color and font, it should be some sort of marker - maybe a special punctuation symbol or graphic at the beginning of the line. Then the roleplaying wouldn't interrupt the strategy planning, or the afk explanations about kids and doorbells, or the guild officers discussion of a problem player, or compliments on others' snazzy weapons and outfits, or any of the other necessary or typical communications in an online game. This is my choice for 2nd most important reason.

Fix the immersion... and you fix the heroism question, I think.


26.

In the example, a group of players tried different tactics until they killed the dragon and got the reward. That would work in a MMORPG only if they were the first group to tackle that dragon. Once the first group finds out what tactics work, they are going to tell their friends, their guild, and soon half the server knows how to kill that dragon. End of heroism, let the dragon slaying treadmill begin.

The instances of heroism in MMORPG I encountered were usually groups accidentally taking on more than they could chew, and then some sort of noble sacrifice. It helps if the developers give people some "noble sacrifice" skill. For example my white mage in FFXI had a special ability (usable only every 2 hours), where he could fully heal the whole group. Of course that drew huge amounts of aggro, and the result was usually me dying. But I didn't mind, as long as the rest of the group survived. I could feel like a hero. I wish there were more skills like that in other games, like being able to explode yourself, or otherwise sacrifying yourself to save your group.

27.

Tobold: The situation you describe is as much heroism as was the Columbus expedition. Certainly, it will be lionized by those who benefit from it, but it is not heroic.

I stand by my basic definition of heroism. Heroism is an entirely selfless altruistic act. I do not see it as existing in character. That is playing heroic. A murder in a play is not the same as a murder in real life. Certainly, mechanics can be introduced to support playing heroic. I don't have any, but a fame/karma system could work, if coupled with the right combat mechanics. However, part of all heroic actions is that it transcends the everyday. This leads us to an interesting concept. Slaying a dragon is a common occurence, but the minor sacrifice of an individual for their comrades is heroic.

Actual heroic activity is impossible to create in a game. This is both because humans are essentially egoists and the fact that the realm of action in most MMOs is limited to combat and directly tangential areas. At most, the room for it should be provided.

I do not believe in immersion being the answer. Games already can conjure up a wealth of emotions without relying on the smoke and mirrors of immersion (which, should be noted, is typically a matter of graphics and connection speed), especially MMOs which contain a wealth of possibilities involving human interaction (A.K.A. the biggest source of emotional involvement across human history). The answer is creating an environment where people can build connections to one another and to what they build there together and allow heroism to arise from that.

Heroism isn't necessary in an MMO. I think it's better without the heroism. Kind of stands as a message, I suppose. When you look at it, and you look at all these great and heroic things you do going through the game world, you say "Is killing all these 40,000 dragons, trolls, orcs, sea hags and hair elementals actually heroic?" And, of course, the answer is no.

Of course, I write from the perspective that MMOs have been coming from the wrong direction towards creating a game world since day one. The important part of the Hero is that his journey ends, similar to how a romance must end happily ever after, or tragically ever after. Without ending, the hero gets caught in a very banal set of affairs, heading out to do very similar adventures over and over again (read: he runs out of new higher level content). Literary heroes, which are what MMOs are based off of by a few degrees, are narrative constructs. D&D is supposed to be a narrative construct (but it can easily be made into a kill 'em up). MMOs do not lend to traditional personal narratives. Too difficult to make that many (without a lot of repetition of elements between everyone, AND doing that would limit the players possible actions in the game), and the player can easily clock in enough time to beat it in a fraction of the time it takes to make more.

I see no bright future in combat based MMOs. The three primary paths they can take are towards PvE games, PvP games and group PvP games. Of them all, I see the brightest future in the last. It at least has the room for social interactions through the political operations of groups. There are balance issues and also the need to create a reason for them to fight besides "well, we want to have a fight!" Scarce resources is the best I suppose, if you want to stay realistic.

All for tonight. Today. Tomorning?

28.

The idea that an heroic story needs an ending is an interesting one.

Perhaps the answer is to provide the possibiltiy of heroics early on in the game. Say, I create a character, play for between two weeks and a month or so, becoming an averagely skilled soldier, and ultimately die heroicly in some great battle (which had some noticable effect on the game world). And then i start again from the beginning, and create a new character, who can go and explore a different aspect of the game.

The key ingredients here are: i am sacrificing something (my character, who has been developped for some time) for the greater good (some change on the game world), but i'm not losing too much (it only took me a short while build up this character) which in itself means that low-level players must be capable of making a difference and having a fun time playing (in a lot of games, the early game is tedious and boring, making permadeath even more unappealing). There must also be a large variety of paths that i can follow (no one enjoys dying over and over if every time they restart they have to re-do the same linear progression).

I wonder how long before major mmorpg's break the (increase in time played)=(increase in linear power scale) philosophy

29.

I sacrificed myself quite a bit in Dark Age and Everquest to save the party (or at least the rezzer) from a bad pull, an inopportune add, etc. This was not heroic. I was going to die either way, I merely mitigating the time sink by letting the others get away.

Primarily, this was not heroic because there was no context to the conflict we were engaged in. They'd be there for the next pull either way. If we fail, they walk back to their spawn. The village doesn't burn, other PCs aren't set upon. If we succeed, the next repop is right around the corner.

The entire conflict was just another trip around the fishbowl, so it's hard to get any true emotions from any particular result.

On the other hand, I sacrificed myself a few times in the early days of Dark Age, during Relic and keep raids. This got a little closer to Heroism, imo, because the threat was dynamic, the risk real. If I had failed, we failed: the Keep was taken, our invading force ambushed, etc. Quite a bit different from just avoiding a TPK on a bad pull.

Still, the loss of a Keep and ultimately a Relic isn't too much different in the grand scheme, but it was closer. It was more emotional. People remember successes and failures in RvR much more clearly. If someone was going to be remembered for their contributions in DAoC, it'd be for RvR.

Now in the earliest days of UO (not to flog a dead horse, but it's really the only example we've got) -- there was consequence for failure. The risk was real. Not in the time-sink sense, but in the definitive and real loss that results in persistent change.

Failing to kill an Ettin (or a PK) plodding toward the crossroads outside of Brittain was a real failure. Other people were going to die if you failed. If you didn't allow a friend time to escape through sacrifice, people wouldn't get word in time to prepare. People would be legitimately saved from a defeatable foe due sacrifice. At the same time, you legitimately risked all the gear you had on hand. Odds are, most everything of value would be gone. You legitimately risked yourself to legitimately save others -- that's Heroic.

IMO, the first step is for the conflict to be real. The risks have to be real. Not in being unduly punishing to the player, but just in that failing to kill the Bad Guy(tm) must result in Something Bad happening. Succeeding in killing the Bad Guy then means that Something Bad was legitimately avoided.

The second step is for the world to remember those deeds. The easist way is just to create money sink items to commemorate deeds. Statues that can be bought, monuments built, stories written, tapestries commissioned, etc - and all these items requiring upkeep to maintain. The players themselves will contribute persistent memories to the world and discriminate between farce and memories worth keeping.

Ideally, NPCs should be aware of heroics too; talking about heroes, greeting heroes, fleeing from villains, etc. Perhaps they would dedicate statues, poems, obelisks and parades themselves.

I don't even think the relativity of heroics is a stumbling point. The idea that many people might get statues isn't necessarily a problem. But if everyone who goes on the 'save the damsel' quest gets a parade, that does diminish the effect.

If I am remembered for my deeds, it isn't meaningfully diminished by you being remembered for your own deeds. So long as everyone isn't 'remembered' for the same deeds, in the same way, there's no problem.

But without meaningful conflict, without the true risk of Villainy, there just cannot be meaningful Heroics.

30.

I think I agree 100% with Weasel, which to me means we are on a collective "right track".

Moreover, comments by Tobold, Wondersaruus, and Biggles all points to some kind of a noble act, sacrifice for the the greater good (2nd usage of Heroism).

I'll just emphasized that, IMO, beyond relativity of heorics is something "special". Current designs are already structured for some level of heroics (relative heroics), but the designs will have to change to provide opportunity for "true heorics." There are some great ideas here.

Frank

31.

I agree with the point that heroism implies an ending.

So how do we have endings in MMORPGs? One path (as discussed recently here on TN) is to "end the world." This can either be an external resetting of the game server, or something with an in-game story. (The Norse concept of Ragnarok is probably the best example.) Knowing that the world is about to go splat is probably very liberating... although I'm not sure many gamers would choose a heroic ending.

The other path is character-centric, which requires permadeath. But that annoys players, so is there a way to allow for heroic endings that treats players with some respect?

I think there is, and it's a simple mechanic: character aging.

When you know your character will eventually age and die (let's say in four RL months of average gameplay time), that's also liberating, but in a different kind of way. Since the world will still be there after you're gone, what you do with the time remaining to you matters. Players can choose to make their exit mean something by going out in a blaze of glory before their powers fade to a memory.

Making it the player's choice takes some of the sting out of permadeath. But even the choice to live to old age could be treated with some dignity -- those who take this path would gradually lose physical and then mental abilities, but for a while might enjoy some benefits granted by "living legend" status... if they earned it.

As weasel said, "I was going to die anyway." Character aging offers a more graceful incentive to heroism than the no-win scenario.

32.

I disagree that statues of heroic individuals should be commissioned, at least not by the developers. If that is in at all, it must be left entirely in the hands of players. In the former system, you create a system of institutionalized reward, most likely handled by some algorithm. This promotes optimization behavior in order to obtain the greatest reward from the reputation system for least cost.

Of course, a player handled commission system has its failings. You could probably be able to get your guild buddies to sign a petition, or buy a statue for yourself if you're rich, but it's better than the alternative.

All I'm saying is that institutionalizing rewards for heroism will most likely result in unheroic behavior.

I agree with Biggles' idea that lower game characters should be made more powerful. I go further to say that higher level characters should not be that more powerful than lower level characters. Of course, there'd need to be some sort of split between an absolute newbie and a grandmaster who has been playing for about 2 years. This serves to increase the possibility of that newbie doing something worthwhile.

I disagree that current systems have much room at all for heroics. They are about killing monsters and getting stuff. There is little room for heroics. And I disagree that it's worth it to try and put them in to the normal major MMO. There seems to be a general contentment among the players of them. If a situation conducive to heroism is installed in a game, it will be on the periphery.

33.

I disagree that statues of heroic individuals should be commissioned, at least not by the developers. If that is in at all, it must be left entirely in the hands of players. In the former system, you create a system of institutionalized reward, most likely handled by some algorithm. This promotes optimization behavior in order to obtain the greatest reward from the reputation system for least cost.

Of course, a player handled commission system has its failings. You could probably be able to get your guild buddies to sign a petition, or buy a statue for yourself if you're rich, but it's better than the alternative.

All I'm saying is that institutionalizing rewards for heroism will most likely result in unheroic behavior.

I agree with Biggles' idea that lower game characters should be made more powerful. I go further to say that higher level characters should not be that more powerful than lower level characters. Of course, there'd need to be some sort of split between an absolute newbie and a grandmaster who has been playing for about 2 years. This serves to increase the possibility of that newbie doing something worthwhile.

I disagree that current systems have much room at all for heroics. They are about killing monsters and getting stuff. There is little room for heroics. And I disagree that it's worth it to try and put them in to the normal major MMO. There seems to be a general contentment among the players of them. If a situation conducive to heroism is installed in a game, it will be on the periphery.

34.

Wondersaurus>I disagree that statues of heroic individuals should be commissioned, at least not by the developers

I never meant to imply that. My suggestion was for one player to be able to commission a statue built, an obelisk erected, a poem written, a tapestry woven - for another player.

The mechanics might dictate consent of the receiving player as necessary, and might even dictate that NPCs handle the creation. But that's neither here nor there. The point was just that the world should to be able to celebrate its heroes, demonize its villains, and commemorate its fallen.

And much as I normally resist it, I think a world with a proper memory would make character aging and eventual permadeath tenable.

35.

Another tough question I would pose is whether most players give a rat's ass about meaningful conflict and opportunities for heroism.

It's a tough question, alrighty, because there's no way to tell yeah or nay. This would be one of my larger gripes about assertions about what players do and do not want in their MMOGs: we're adjudicating that by what they've done, and what they've done is what the games allow them to do.

It's like trying to decide if the residents of Flatland would like to be three-dimensional. They don't live in a world that allows three-dimensionality, so it's something of a moot point.

We could probably trade duelling anecdotes all day. I'd point out that when players, even powerlevelling achiever-killer maximo d00dz, tell stories of what they loved best in their favorite games after they've stopped playing those games, one of the things that I hear again and again are stories of sacrifice--the players in Asheron's Call who went down to try and help a buddy get back some insanely valuable item on his corpse even though everyone knew it was probably futile and would get people killed, and so on. People tell stories about unexpected acts of altruism, of unusual inventions--like the guy in SWG who turned his house into an aquarium long before you could move furniture up and down on the Z-axis on purpose, and so on. All things that game engines don't really support or formally encode.

This tells me something about what people might like to do more often in a MMOG, that they press at the limits of the possible and recall and embellish experiences that unfold in the intertices of active gameplay. But since no MMOG has set out as a design objective to allow much of this, we don't really know.

Part of the issue here is not just risk-reward but the extent to which the only possible protagonist in a conventional MMOG is really the group or aggregate--there's nothing an individual can do that is marked by or recorded in the persistent environment to distinguish himself or herself besides doing what everyone else does more or longer or more efficiently. But what groups do is recorded and noted and has a persistent effect--a guild of 500 in a game where every other guild is about 50 players essentially deforms everything around it, and becomes a "heroic protagonist" of sorts as an aggregate.

I do think there are game mechanics in even a conventional MMOG that could allow for some kinds of limited heroism--say, for example, a high-level character was allowed to burn 20% of their experience points to briefly become uberpowerful for two hours. Players would take note of that because it would sacrifice the most precious currency in a conventional MMOG, namely, labor time, for a transient experience or objective.

36.

Maybe the problem is the lack of civilians. Many heroic journeys in fantasy literature are about the hero saving his village or community. He is a hero, because the others very much prefer to be farmers and live a life without risk. When an external menace appears, he is the only one risking his life to combat the menace. He goes and slays the dragon not because he will become a better fighter, or because of treasure, but because the dragon would eat his village if he didn't.

In a MMORPG the character you play performs the same action, going out and fighting evil, but the motivation is different. There is no village to save. There are no peaceful farmers, or family members to protect from evil. Whether you kill the dragon or not has no consequence.

It is well possible in a MMORPG to save somebody else from harm. This might be more heroic, in the form of a sacrifice, or just a drive-by-healing, or simply handing your old equipment to a newbie. Many of these acts are kindly remembered, and stories told. Do we really need an institutionalization of heroism? Or would that cheapen the whole heroics into just another quest?

37.


Maybe the problem is the lack of civilians. Many heroic journeys in fantasy literature are about the hero saving his village or community. He is a hero, because the others very much prefer to be farmers and live a life without risk.

I'm led to think of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai - they may be ungrateful, selfish farmers to boot... but perhaps the secret sauce is selfless acts for a better future - imagined or not. In game terms: the ability to impact the storyline for the betterment of a future community? Interesting, should that community be NPCs or PCs?

38.

It strikes me that the all the PCs are villans already. For no other reason than personal gain they go out into the countryside and kill hundreds of creatures that would never hurt anyone if they were just left alone. You don't even need to ignore much of the flavour text to see these worlds this way.

Trite, but a real hero in these games would be standing at the entrance to a monster cave and defending it against the greedy selfish farmers.
Not helping them achieve their selfish ends.

39.

Ah, but that's yet another and very different kind of thing that MMOGs don't have: morally ambiguous choices whose moral ambiguity is recognized within the structure of the gameworld and whose consequences are persistently marked by the gameworld. Yes, players make morally ambiguous choices in relation to other players, but those are like interactions that take place in email or on websites--they're communicative, relational moral ambiguity. Which is probably sufficient for the crowd of people who like to argue that a MMOG should just be about giving players relational tools and stepping out of the way, but that really returns us to the common criticism that some MMOGs are merely graphically enhanced chat rooms. If at least one of the other attributes a good persistent-world MMOG should have is a gameworld or characters who are marked and changed by choices made, then it would be nice if some of those choices were understood as being moral forks-in-the-road of a kind more interesting than being "good" or "evil".

Think of "Princess Mononoke", for example--that could easily be modeled as a MMOG set-up. There's the creatures of the forest and there's the proto-industrial town; you're inclined to think of siding with the forest against the proto-industrial town, until you notice that the town is an emancipatory community for former prostitutes and others who have been mistreated, and that the creatures of the forest are savage and inhuman in many ways. Whose side are you on? You could make a "good" case for either, and maybe some choices you make will have a kind of finality to them that will bring regret.

This all goes back to what's on the table in this thread: if heroism is about sacrifice and loss and willingly taking on the suffering and burdens of others for no reward or thanks, you can't have that in a MMOG until you have the actual possibility of loss and sacrifice that is part of the persistent world or the persistent developmental path of characters. If everything just recycles to null the next morning, you can't have heroism save as an imaginative affect that players strive to conjure up as an elaborate costume upon the bare bones of the game.

40.

Actually, I think in a graphically enhanced chatroom you'd have more room for heroics of the fantasy-novel or tabletop-game sort. In a completely text environment, too. All of which would better support roleplaying of the heroic sort as well as of other sorts.

Wondersaurus's note that immersion is about FPS - "Games already can conjure up a wealth of emotions without relying on the smoke and mirrors of immersion (which, should be noted, is typically a matter of graphics and connection speed)" - confused me. Immersion is about emotional connection, to me. I got the most immersion out of IRC chat games - what's the FPS on those?

(with regards to the white mage example above) --City of Heroes has a lot of powers at the top of various archetypes that are designed for heroic sacrifices. Things you can only do after you or another party member dies, or things that leave you helpless and likely to die after doing them, that will make a huge difference to a battle. I'm not sure they actually add heroism to the game, but I'm not sure they don't, either.

41.

"Actually, I think in a graphically enhanced chatroom you'd have more room for heroics of the fantasy-novel or tabletop-game sort. In a completely text environment, too. All of which would better support roleplaying of the heroic sort as well as of other sorts."

Oops, I left out the explanation of that one.

The game part of the MMORPG actually draws me away from the roleplaying. I suppose I don't have enough concentration to do both at once.

It's like trying to be an actor in a play about a baseball game, while simultaneously being a real player trying to win the game. Admittedly, your character is a player who wants to win -- but you have to keep the in character distractions in mind too. If your character has a craving for chewing tobacco, should you play him as distracted and miss the ball? Having less game makes it easier to have more attention toward creating dramatic situations.

On the other hand. Maybe my experience isn't useful; the experiences I had that were heroic in games, didn't feel heroic at the time. They felt more fatalistic - "I'm going to die anyway, might as well see if I can save anyone else" sort of things - or even angstily self-destructive - "I was no use to anyone alive, at least I can make my death useful." It was only in hindsight that I realized those characters were heroic.

In real life, do heroes feel heroic? In the books I like best, they don't seem to. In interviews I've read about people who performed real-life feats of heroism (the ones who survived), they usually say they didn't feel heroic at the time, either.

42.

The duality of you and your avatar that Dee points to is something that I think is still difficult to transcend for many, include myself.

It's like: am I method acting a hero in a gameworld or being the hero in the gameworld?

One aspect that help characterization is the RP process of developing your character's background; thereby making the character distinctly different from self.

Sure, races like dwarf or elf already have cultural characterization embedded. Even playing a hero in CoH embedds the characterization of being hero. But the process of developing your character's background help solidify the creation of Avatar and allows the Avatar to be more "heroic" than the average person is.

Perhaps most player may not care about heroism, but perhaps their avatars do :)

Frank

43.

D Lacey> "In interviews I've read about people who performed real-life feats of heroism (the ones who survived), they usually say they didn't feel heroic at the time, either."

Isn't this the key problem? All this discussion of how to make people feel like heroes is pointless if real heroism involves not feeling like a hero. In otherwords, we have a catch 22. A system which creates real heros will not have those heros self-identifying as such. Thus, no player will have the gameplay experience of feeling heroic. Thus, they have no hero feelings to induce further monthly payments.

- Brask Mumei

44.

> Nathan: In game terms: the ability to impact the storyline for the betterment of a future community? Interesting, should that community be NPCs or PCs?

Could be both, but NPCs would be easier to set up. For this to work with PCs, you would basically need to create two games in one. The important thing is to have one civilian community, which is providing goods, and one hero community, which is protecting the civilians.

It would be relatively easy to create cities and villages of NPCs, and make the prices in them depending on the density of the monster population around them. Then provided you have a mechanism in where players can actually decrease monster population for some time in a limited area, they can heroically liberate the village from the monsters. Being motivated either by the heroism, or by the resulting falling prices for goods they need.

If you tried to do the same with PCs, you would need a civilian population of players. Not just heros with a tradeskill, but players who JUST have tradeskills and depend on hero players to guard them. The civilian part of the game would have to be at least as interesting as the hero part, otherwise nobody would want to play it. I don't think we'll get there anytime soon.

45.

Brask Mumei>A system which creates real heros will not have those heros self-identifying as such.

I don't think that matters. What matters is for the world to recognize them as such. Whether I feel heroism, and whether I express that feeling doesn't matter.

Whether someone else calls me a hero and whether the world remembers me as such matters.

The main benefit of heroism is to broaden the gamespace beyond simple math.

46.

It seems we've kind of split into two ways of looking at hero's:
There's the hero of the introductory example - who didn't die to save friends or farmers, but did so to get loot and eventual bragging rights. These heros succeeded by essentially throwing corpses at the dragon - it was a roll of the literal dice that meant that one survived over all the previous attempters. Those that survived (and indeed, the players of those who didn't - who latch onto the 'I was there' mentality) have bragging rights to the event - but to me, that wasn't heroic.
Then you have the hero who challenged the ettin en route to the capital - most likely to die a horrible and painful (item loss) death. It's entirely possible that that 'hero' wouldn't be seen making that sacrafice, and indeed, the player has only material losses on their horizon. To some players - there is no reason for taking it on. They'd hide and make sure they don't get aggro'ed. The one who challenges that ettin to help save the capital, is the hero to me.

I'll pull out a couple of differences -

'Material Hero'
Seemingly random success - the first example is as heroic as finding a lineup of people, and having them draw straws to be the 'hero'. This, our mmorpgs could provide. I'd rather they didn't.

'Accidental Hero'
Unexpected heroic chance - if someone goes out and thinks "I'll be heroic today - I'll just pop to the hero-shop and get a hero-job." There's no way that'll result in any kind of real heroism. Most hero's don't look to be hero's - they're just in the right place :)

One last comment (as I've spewed brain-vomit enough) - the moment the player decided to take on that ettin, they were a hero. Whether they lived or respawned, lost items or looted, even whether or not they actually made a difference for the people in Brittain - making that decision made them a hero IMHO.

47.

Just after I posted my doubts on ever having a MMORPG with a PC civilian population that could be saved by PC heroes, I get the beta invite to ATITD2 in my e-mail. Reminding me that you CAN get thousands of players to play a civilian community.

Of course ATITD lacks the monsters that could be heroically defeated, and I don't think they will be added, at least not permanently (Teppy added monsters and combat once as an aprils fools joke). But somebody else might create a game that has both the civilian population of ATITD and the EQ monsters, and create some meaningful interaction between them, thus enabling heroism.

48.

ATITD have heroics of accomplishment. It serves the first definition of "hero" I cited above from dictionary.com.

But, here's a good essay about a LARP GM's motivation for creating heroic situations:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/AskPlot/message/458

It's a message to the players on the reasons of current plot development and I think it states good reasons for setting up heroic encounters.

Frank

49.

I think the need for villany is an interesting perspective on heroes. I think the issue, however, is that true villany is often very bad for community (by definition?).

Someone pointed out that all PCs could be considered villans, and I have to wonder whether this is the result of NPCs doing such a poor job at villany. MMOPRG game design sets up the dragon as a resource moreso than a monster. The fact that we "farm" critters should be an indication that they bear more in common with corn or wheat than with villany.

The "Do players enjoy farming?" thread on MUD-Dev discussed the possibilities for a different model for farming and for monsters.

From that thread:

"So why not introduce something like real farming? Those who are
interested in farming-like or even mining-like activities can be the
major producers of resources in the game. When you add monsters to
this mix, you can get something very interesting. The farmers don't
want to be killed. That's not really their game. However, the
monsters have a nasty habit of ruining their crops, killing their
sheep, or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. So, the
farmers hire monster killers (those who like high-risk activities)
to help keep the nuisance to a minimum. Or maybe they hire builders
to construct a better wall around their property. In any case, you
avoid the very strange case where the game is about seeking out
monsters to farm, camp, or otherwise harvest as the major source of
game resources. You can make monsters bigger and scarier with less
thought given to balance, since the entire game is no longer based
on harvesting them. Best of all, you can evoke emotions that are
much more in line with how monsters should be viewed. Not as
something like corn or wheat, but as big, scary, dangerous things
that we love to fear and love to hate."

Tobold's post on meaningful interaction between players involved in ATITD and EQ games within the same world space lines up very well with where this MUD-Dev thread eventually headed.

In the end, while it is difficult to introduce PC villany while maintaining control over the amount of damage that villany does to your online community (and retention), you may be able to make NPC villany more believable in a manner that actually improves the community and the possibility for heroism.

--Phin

50.

If there are no penalties for failure apart from retry time (item loss, permadeath, crippling, etc), then there will be little emotional buzz for success. Heroism will only grow where there is guild competition or direct PvP. The NPC/AI can always be learnt and then gamed - only real people/opponents provide a challenge worth retelling.

Ever noticed how the Evil side tends to attract the most competent players (technique-wise)? Our RL society has taught us the road to power thru acquisition, competition and domination. So this path in games is recognised and followed. Not least by the developers.

But what strange idea of heroism you guys have? Almost all the examples involve dying and losing. Sure Gandalf and Martin Luther King took a hit for the team. But Conan, Aragorn, Lech Walesa and Churchill managed to combine heroism and winning. When the crunch came, they showed the moral leadership to overwhelm the odds.

Sadly I suspect it is hard to roleplay that kind of leadership. Somehow it seems easier to roleplay being more selfish than you really are, than to roleplay being more altruistic (assuming a significant in-world result to both courses of action).

Lineage2 seems to propose an interesting endgame of PvP clan competition, with the clan leaders having to sacrifice much of their personal power as the price of exercising the clan functions. I would expect the sucessful leaders to achieve fame. I will be interesting to see if they are famed as heros or villains. (Shame that the treadmill grind of L2 is so mindnumbingly boring)

51.

it's important to seperate the ideas of fame and heroism in this discussion, as they do not always stem from the same source.

fame means becoming well known. in an mmorg this means becomeing a common name on your server. a name that powerfull players respect and newbies hear rumors of in their early days. mmorgs do allow this to occur. Guild leaders, winners of tournaments, ninja looters, etc etc all make a name for themselves. This is not heroism though.

IMO, true heroism is an act which places oneself at risk for the benefit of a cause/someone else. for example, a knight holding off the enemy while his friends make an escape, knowing he will certainly be killed. or, a warrior raising his besieged city's flag to rally his fellows despite knowing the last three men to wave the flag were killed by sharpshooting archers. mmorgs simply don't allow for this (at least none that i have played) because there is no real risk. in EQ the knight that holds the passage off will just get a 96% ressurection and continue playing as if nothing had happened.

This is one of the reasons that i often say MMORPGs are is a misnomer. aside that the players actually role-playing are in the minority the loss of permanent risk handicaps the spectrum of emotions players will experience during game play. This can degrade to the point where players don't even associate ANY real emotions whatsoever with their avatar's fate, considering death (of themselves and their closest companions) more of an inconvenience than a sad, heroic, tragic, etc occurance.

the result is that, while MMORPGS can be great fun, they are not real role-playing games, like the AD$D we played around a table in the good old days. I'm not sure there is a way to fix this. I am sure, however, that a great many true role-players find themselves today wandering virtual worlds in search of the real rpg experience.

Any game that can actually deliver that will be a huge success.

52.

World of Warcraft is my first mmorpg experience, and my first online game. In the short time i have been playing, i have seen many acts of kindness, self-sacrifice, and stubborn bravery. But if one of the requirements for heroism is to 'change the world', then no, i havent seen that. The 'world' seems incapable of changing in response to player actions. The princess we rescued yesterday will be missing again tommorrow. The slain ogre will still be there if we return to his cave. The only time this kind of 'world' ever really changes, is when we download a new patch, update, or expansion pack.

The comments to this entry are closed.