Can an RPG truly be multiplayer?

[Kyrvias]

This came up on the Mass Effect forum, about, you guessed it, Mass Effect. Well, I started a thread asking if they thought an RPG could be multiplayer.

So far, everyone has said, "An RPG cannot truly be multiplayer."

What do you all think? I personally think it can, I mean, hell, it worked out fine for Baldurs Gate. It was mostly a single player game, but the multiplayer element added a little something.

[Bozos of Bones]

I see no reason why an RPG couldn't be multiplayer. Granted, it would be much slower than your regular multiplayer FPSs, but it would work. It does work, as proven by millions of MMORPGs in the maket today.

[Felix The Assassin]

Children, children, paleasse! Read your history!

[robertthebard]

Ok, I understand RPG to be Role Playing Game. Uh, by definition then, it would probably be better multiplayer, since then you would have real oppurtunities to role play.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Ok, I understand RPG to be Role Playing Game. Uh, by definition then, it would probably be better multiplayer, since then you would have real oppurtunities to role play.

..man's right! Ya gotta have a party of 4 or so. Sounds multi-player to me...

[Bithron]

If they stay IC then yes.

[robertthebard]

With games like Baldur's Gate etc., you were limited to the role play that was scripted in for the chars. If this, then that. With online MP role play, you never know what's going to happen. Even if you just gather a few buds for a romp through Undermountain, for example, you are still role playing, even if you don't stick strictly to your character, unless, of course, you run around slaying dragons all the time.

Whether players stay in character or not, it's still a role playing game, and it's still most definitely MP'er. MMORPG's are not the only MP games out there.

[Luvian]

Of course, just look at tabletop D&D.

The problem is that we always either get stuck with 1: Single player games where the you are the main character and have an effect on the story, 2: The same kind of rpg as above, but with additional players that tag along and have really no place in the story, or 3: Multiplayer games where the world is static so that everyone can do everything, which is not at all like a real rpg should be. You can make real multiplayer rpgs, but the players would have to be in the same party, so that they can all be the heroes, and all have a part in the story. You can't have one character save the kingdom from a huge meteor, just to have the meteor stay there for the next player. Mmorpgs are not really real roleplaying games, in my opinion.

I guess in theory you could have the players split up at some point in the story and all do their own miniquest, but then at the end they would have to wait for each others to rejoin the main story.

[robertthebard]

The thing that makes an RPG is the role play. Even if the meteor is there time and again, which is kinda hokey...the way the players deal with it, and eachother, is what makes it an RPG. Actually, RPG would be wrong, it's CRPG, since it's all done on/with the computer. Pen and Paper DnD is an RPG, Baldur's Gate, et al, is a CRPG. Just a nit, but it just occured to me.

[Rikard T'Aranaxz]

when you can wait because the meteor can wait for you (like in BG or D2 or whatever random MMORPG) then its no longer roleplaying. there isnt the pressure of a possible failure if you are late. in that BG isnt a real RPG either, i find myself thinking to much "what does the game offer as best solution" instead of "what would my character realistically do in given situation". in that all CRPGs are more adventure games then true RPGs