Is World of Warcraft creating a desire for more role-playing in D&D?

[Shortman McLeod]

Driddle . . . Whizbang Dustyboots . . . come on! You know ya love each other.

 

[shadowpriest]

To be honest, i don't know if world of warcraft players would be good rpg players. Some might be for sure, but i don't think the instant rewards system in online rpg games make good player. They are used to always win something with every action and to be told what to do to get said rewards. But then again, this is my opinion, in no way i want to say that mmorpg players are not as good as normal rpg players. They are just different.

 

[PeterWeller]

To be honest, i don't know if world of warcraft players would be good rpg players. Some might be for sure, but i don't think the instant rewards system in online rpg games make good player. They are used to always win something with every action and to be told what to do to get said rewards. But then again, this is my opinion, in no way i want to say that mmorpg players are not as good as normal rpg players. They are just different.

I don't know if playing MMOs will hurt someone's ability to play RPGs. Sure, they're going to come to the table with certain assumptions that will be unfulfilled, but the minute they realize they can get their instant reward by killing your NPC and taking his stuff instead of taking his hook, they will be on the path towards realizing and enjoying what makes a table top RPG different from a computer one.

 

[Cadfan]

I personally think that the next generation of roleplayers, and D&D as a hobby, are doomed. These are kids who have been trained by the games they play to have munchkin-ish, low roleplaying playstyles. I highly doubt that they will be able to unlearn the lessons that the games popular in their age group have taught, and unable to mature into real roleplayers.

Yes, I am talking about the scourge that is Monopoly. Here we have a game that is almost entirely based around die rolling, with only a small amount of tactical decisions available to the players. The circular nature of the board trains them to be more accepting of campaigns-on-rails, and the focus on acquiring more and more money ensures that they will seek only power when playing other games. Characters are one dimensional, and lack variety in personality. When was the last time you saw a monopoly player really investigate what makes the boot different from the little dog?

And its a miniatures game [spits]. We're really screwed.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Heck, GURPS is one of the most complex games out there, yet, I never hear people talking about how it's all about the hack and no role play. Quite the opposite in fact.

Because GURPS combat kills characters who are over eager for combat. Thus, combat-avoidance through "role-playing" is encouraged, in general.

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

When was the last time you saw a monopoly player really investigate what makes the boot different from the little dog?

I resent that! One of my earliest role-playing experiences was with Moopy the Thimble Bard. A failure to draw meaningful role-playing out of the system is a quality of the player, not the system.

 

[WayneLigon]

As much Dancy's idea of WoW sucking all of the hardcore tactical powegamers out of the hobby appeals to me, I doubt it will happen in any significant measure just like I doubt we'll recruit a significant number of people from the ranks of WoW that are bored with a MMORPG and want a face-to-face experience. What people want from the two experiences are sufficiently far enough apart to prevent much colonization of one side by the other.

I don't think that D&D is going down a road towards trying to appeal to the hardcore WoW market at all, for that very reason. They recognize that the markets are too dissimilar.

 

[IceFractal]

I find it pretty hypocritical how eager some people are to slam WoW and its players. Let's take a look at some statements:

"D&D is for nerds, people shouldn't waste time on it"
"D&D is just hack and slash, WoD is the only real roleplaying one"
"WoW is lame, and people who play it turn into mindless powergamers"

How exactly is the third statement different from the first two?
And it's hardly an exaggeration, I've heard people slamming 4E over the fact that one of the designers considered (and ultimately discarded) the concept of "aggro". I'm not trying to call anyone an elitist game-bigot, but some of the statements I've heard on these boards really point that way.

 

[IceFractal]

Also, I'd don't see a point to D&D becoming a fully rules-lite game. There are already a myriad of rules-lite narrative based games, and I play them when I want that style of campaign. When I play D&D, I want a more tactical experience.

 

[Hussar]

Because GURPS combat kills characters who are over eager for combat. Thus, combat-avoidance through "role-playing" is encouraged, in general.

Oh, totally agree. Never mind the lethality of it, how about the mind numbing boredom that goes along. Sorry, cheap shot at Gurps. Never cared for its combat resolution mechanics just because it took SO bloody long. People who think 3e combat is slow should give Gurps a try.

But, I was responding to the original point that somehow complexity of the game is directly proportional to the amount of role playing. This is patently false. Simple does not equate to more role playing any more than complex equates to less.

This is just yet more gamer geek elitism.