Justin W: Hi, I'm Justin Weiss, your roundtable moderator, here once again to continue our twice-a-month-ish discussion on RPGs. We have some great topics tonight, but before we begin, I'd like our panelists to introduce themselves:

Cortney: I'm Cortney, a newsie here at RPGamer. I'm an opinionated feminist.

Andrew: I'm Andrew Long, head of the news department at RPGamer. Currently, I'm studying for an English test. I may fail miserably :)

Alex: Hey, I'm Alex Wollenschlaeger, returning news-type person, and, much to my dismay, I am way too tall for economy airline seats.

Chris: Yo. I'm Chris Boothroy, a brand new newsie. I'm a Gemini, I like long walks on the beach...

Justin H: Hi, everybody! I'm Justin Harwood, a newsie, and staffer in charge of squid.

Justin W: Ok, our first topic tonight is one that I personally would like to see in many more games than it is: Many later SNES Square RPGs had multiplayer modes, be it the multiplayer battles in Final Fantasy V/VI or the true multiplayer mode of Secret of Mana. A slightly different form of multiplayer exists in online RPGs such as Phantasy Star Online. How do you think a multiplayer mode would add to the quality of an RPG and what style of multiplayer mode do you think would be best for the RPG genre? Are there any ideas beyond these mentioned that would work for RPGs?

Justin H: I have to say, I'm glad to see true multiplayer modes like Secret of Mana go away. Speaking as a nerd, it's hard enough to get two whole friends of mine in the same state with me, let alone get them to play an RPG with me. Trying to play Secret of Mana by myself was rewarding, but a real pain at the same time, you know? I guess I don't mind it as an option, but I don't want it as the main gameplay mode. Regardless, I was surprised to see that Kingdom Hearts didn't offer some sort of multiplayer option. It would have worked pretty well there, I think.

Alex: The verdict on multiplayer in RPGs very much depends on why you're playing them in the first place. If you're in them for the battles, then having a friend along for the ride is fantastic. Story-centric games on the other hand can be rather impractical when you have to make sure that you have your friends around every time you want to make some progress in the game. The ideal for me would be something like a multiplayer Grandia, but with a better story. Multiplayer games are generally most fun when they are gameplay-centric, something that most console RPGs cannot count as their defining characteristic.

Justin W: I was always a big fan of the Square SNES multiplayer RPGs. There's really nothing like being able to have a few friends over for a marathon RPG session and actually have them involved rather than just passing the controller around. Sure, you never really beat multiplayer RPGs unless you switch to single player from time to time, but it's still a lot of fun. I'd also love to see a multiplayer tactical RPG sometime. You could fight battles together as a team, only to one day be pit against each other in a climactic battle of human against human. Golden Sun kind of did this with the coliseum, but I'd rather see it done in a strategy-RPG setting than a standard RPG setting.

Justin H: Maybe I just don't have enough friends? Anyhow, I don't have a problem with a multiplayer option, per se, I just have a hard time buying a game without a strong single player mode.

Justin W: That's true. There's really no point of playing through a bad game multiplayer if it's a bad game single-player.

Chris: I don't think RPGs like Final Fantasy should be focused with multiplayer aspects. Role-playing Games with strong stories are more enjoyable for one player as opposed to two or more players. Games that are focused on "multiplayer", especially in RPGs, lose a lot to the story. Sometimes it CAN work, but more often than not it doesn't work.

Justin W: See, I'd like to see an RPG focused on home multiplayer. I think they could do some really interesting things with the way the story unfolds, the way the battles are set up, and the way the relationships between the players and the characters develop. It's really relatively uncharted territory and I think it has a lot of potential.

Alex: I'll grant you that. Multiplayer is something that has hardly been explored, and I think that developers could really surprise us.

Chris: I've been big on MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Games) like Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, etc. They're considered RPGs yet they lack highly in the story department. Most of the stories are player developed, which can work but only if the player base is dedicated to it. Games that are built off of their great storylines, like the Final Fantasy series, could suffer from the lack of a storyline in the game.

Cortney: I'm partial to classic multiplayer over massively multiplayer because it encourages living camaraderie, as opposed to playing with some stranger who lives a thousand miles away. For all you know, that hot little female necromancer on EverQuest could really be a 35-year-old creep named Marv who lives in his parents' basement. Think "Comic Book Guy" a la The Simpsons. In any case, what better way to foster a friendship than by beating a boss together? Or by kicking the ever-living snot out of each other? While this is possible with a stranger on the other end of an Internet connection, having a living, breathing person by your side is so much better. My husband and I love to play video games together, as it brings us together as friends. Don't forget the "masses are asses" theorem. Far too many people on MMORPGs are bound and determined to cause trouble for other players, e.g. killing them with high-powered characters, cursing people in AOL lingo, etc. That is why I avoid MMORPGs.

Justin W: See, I think that if a company were to create a story around the fact that more than one human player was going to be playing the game, it would allow for a single-player-ish storyline, but with actual human interaction. It could be the best of both worlds, or it could be the worst, but it'd be interesting all the same. Yeah, I think having it be multi-player-offline would help alleviate a lot of the MMORPG complaints.

Justin H: It sure could be interesting. I'm just afraid it would be "interesting" in a SaGa Frontier (read: bad) way. Look, the last thing I want to do is discourage new ideas in gaming, but I guess I've just been burned by so-called 'experimental' RPGs too many times.

Cortney: That's an interesting idea. Suppose only you and your select friends could play together online without interlopers. You could connect with long-distance friends easily.

Justin W: Right, and I think that knowing that there was another human being behind another one of your characters would make the relationships between those characters that much stronger.

Alex: But, Justin W, what kind of game are you thinking of? Two people playing at the same time, or something more episodic, where gamers can continue their part of the story at their leisure?

Justin W: I'm thinking along the lines of both. Perhaps both players could be members of one party for most of the game, but maybe they split off eventually into a split-screen or an episodic environment. It could give the world a larger appeal, if you had the impression that your party is bigger than just you. Eventually, perhaps you could even fight the other human with the experience, weapons, and skill you each gained.

Justin H: Now THAT would intrigue me. Something I could play with friends if I wanted to, but could also just play by myself. That I could enjoy, I think.

Alex: Something like Suikoden 3 could be cool in multiplayer, with each person playing a different perspective. Then, later in the game, you would have to hook up to waste the last boss.

Justin H: So, to sum up, I think we could all be sold on the idea, if it was done in the right way. Not too surprising, really.

Justin W: Right. It'd be tough to make it all coherent and fun, but it's definitely possible.