WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Bumbles]

OK, you win.

What's winning? I wasn't even aware it was a contest.

Wow, I have absolutely no idea what this means...

Means Iron Sky has gotten one character to max level, another to the old max, and played the others to some extent. Which doesn't quite tell us everything, but at least hopefully shows some familiarity with the game.

 

[Ariosto]

As I wrote earlier, I have seen the comparison made mainly by people with little interest in (and hence little knowledge of) 4E or WoW. I really do not think it is meant literally, but stems from such a reaction as Hereticus has described.

I'm not claiming that this is any more than anecdotal experience. I think I can see, though, some hints as to how the response arose at least in those cases.

The roll-out -- with "4dventure" ("Wasn't that a Chevy?") and "D&D Sizzle" ("Who exactly is that YouTube video supposed to appeal to?" "Francophiles with laptops, I guess.") -- did not help.

Cue Magic: the Gathering, Pokemon, Everquest, and WoW references like Pavlov inducing dogs to salivate. "Trying to compete head-to-head with World of Warcraft is stupid for Wizards of the Coast." But what was the basis of the assumption that WotC was doing so? Was it just a joke that outlived the punchline?

The semi-joke goes back to 3E, which to the traditionalists was already edging into Rifts and SenZar territory. No, those are not (as far as I know) computer games. But they do deal in bigger numbers than AD&D, and so does 3E (as an orc with an ax quickly demonstrated), and so do some computer games. Some folks, especially of a certain age, tend to find that sort of thing funny. It may have to do with long association with the phrase "Dungeons and Beavers".

So, along comes this new game with even bigger numbers, "healing surges", wizards casting Magic Missile (or Ray of Frost, etc.) at will, even more wuxia/ shonen / something-sounding jargon, and ... lots of buzz about great new online features. "So, will the 4E PHB come with controllers, or will they be sold separately?"

As far as I can tell, this was all a priori and ad hominem. It Came From Wizards, and so did 3E -- and many of the same folks had been saying similar things about that.

It's not that they actually knew much about anime, MMORPGs, or 4E. The common element was that they did not want to get acquainted with any of those.

 

[Ariosto]

The definition of "roles" by (abstract game) combat function seems to be one thing that rubs some people the wrong way. I suspect it's also one of the things some fellows who are avid players of such things meant when they told me that the game was easier to grasp with experience in some computer games.

Jargon can be simply confusing sometimes -- as in the first time I encountered the video-gamer usage of "mob". I reckon it can also be off-putting, especially to people predisposed to be put off.

 

[EATherrian]

I'm replying before reading all of the other replies. I have played both WOW and 4E and although I can feel some thematic or organizational similarities I think that they can be written off as just the evolution of gaming. Basically D&D and videogames are symbiotic, feeding off of each other since the beginning. Similarities are going to occur, since they share a contextual ancestor. As for the manuals, they did feel a bit videogamey to me, but I felt more Advanced Squad Leader.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Step #1) Please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is not a video game fan, and has maybe heard of WoW and two or three others that are advertised on TV. People like me do not know of the multitude of diverse games out there, so let's please try to communicate on a common level.

Fine then. We'll talk about three of the most popular and widely known videogames in the history of the medium: Pong, Pac-Man, and Tetris. I would be very surprised if you haven't heard of at least two of those.

Does 4E more closely resemble Pong, Pac-Man, or Tetris than 3E does?

Honestly, I think such a question is almost ridiculous beyond comprehension, but it is nonetheless part of the question you were asking. If you are talking about videogames as a whole, even limiting the discussion to the most well-known videogames any non-fan would know of, then your question is simply too broad to be meaningful.


Admin here, breaking into the post to point out that your post comes across as subtly insulting and condescending. We've talked, so I know that wasn't your intent, but everyone -- before hitting Submit, please read over your post to make sure you are actually communicating what you want to say. If you've written something that may be construed as disparaging, consider taking a second to revise it. Thanks.

Finally, again for everyone, please try to give other members the benefit of the doubt.

Feel free to PM me with questions. ~ Piratecat

In the same respect, when taking about RPGs, let's talk about D&D only. I'm sure that there are another "multitude of diverse games out there", but let's keep it simple.

I was just sticking to talking about D&D...

Thank you, you have just agreed with me!

More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.

So as table top RPGs are designed to be closer to the new generally accepted definition as marketable fun, they are getting closer to what video games are.

Your belief that I am agreeing with you is based on a false assumption on your part.

What I meant, but you failed to notice, was that D&D is not the only thing driven by these changing beliefs about what is fun and what makes a good game. If anything, the history of videogames reveals these changes more than a comparison of different editions of D&D would. To a certain extent, older videogames made in the 80's tend to more closely resemble certain assumptions and ideas seen in older versions of D&D, and both old videogames and old versions of D&D have similar ideas of what "fun" means. Meanwhile, newer videogames tend to have design principles and assumptions that more closely resemble the ideas of "fun" that are presented in 4E. I think you might find it helpful to keep in mind that videogame fandom has just as much of a "retro" movement as D&D fandom does. Both are evolving concurrently for the same reasons, it is not a matter of one simply taking ideas from the other.

If you want, I can be a bit more verbose about how the differences between early videogames and modern videogames closely parallel the differences between older versions of D&D and 4E.

I guess to put it all another way... The reason that I dislike your question so much is because it implies that videogames are a massive, unchanging thing, and that decades of change, dozens of genres, hundreds of popular, long-running series, and countless different ideas can all be summed up with a simple comparison. It simply doesn't work that way.

I have no problem with Hasbro/WotC redesigning a game to be as popular as possible by selling what will be seen as fun to the most people possible.

But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?

I can perfectly understand that you don't like your favorite game being taken in another direction. I don't have to agree that videogames are responsible for this change in direction. If you don't like the change, just say you don't like the change, don't try to find some cause for the change that can be used as a scapegoat.

But, to turn this around and bring it back to the point I made above...

I am a longtime fan of the Final Fantasy series of videogames. I will continue to support that series for a long time to come. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the series has radically changed across recent years. They are currently working on Final Fantasy XIII, but my favorite iteration of the series was Final Fantasy V, made way back in 1992. Just as D&D is changing, so is my favorite series of videogames, and just as some people don't like the changes in recent versions of D&D, I don't like the changes in recent versions of Final Fantasy.

Actually, unlike with D&D, the changes to the Final Fantasy series can be blamed on MMORPG ideas, since Final Fantasy XI is an MMORPG...

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I think what 4E could use, and I am making for my games, is a questionaire about your character'&s "fluff". Parents, where grew up, skills and abilities outside combat, etc, things that are not covered inteh Character builder or the rulebooks.

If you want to personalize your WOW character, it needs to be much the same, as both appear fully grown out of nothing when you start the game. Not a dig on either system, but how it is. FLuff has to be built jsut like rules crunch, but it is something htat is easy to do.,

One thing I have noticed that is similar between 4E and WOW is people trying to shove the "best build" down everyone's throat. If you have class XXX then you need item YYY and starting stats of ZZ and so on. Stuff like that really drives away the fluff of the game, in addition to being directly insulting to everyone who asks for advice on making a character, especially people who have some interest in roleplaying the character.

There are certainly peopole around who try their hardest to make 4E into a computer game, but I don't think it really is, 4E still has far more roleplaying ptential than any online computer game ever will. However, I think 4E ahs less rolleplaying potential than older versions because it has taken a lot of the full out of the crunch.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Post removed by admin. If you think there's a problem with a post, please report it instead of insulting the person back. Thanks. ~ Piratecat

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Never mind it was nothing constructive

 

[Bumbles]

Well, I think what 4E could use, and I am making for my games, is a questionaire about your character'&s "fluff". Parents, where grew up, skills and abilities outside combat, etc, things that are not covered inteh Character builder or the rulebooks.

Well, while I appreciate the idea, I'd note that that kind of thing, in my experience, is less about the system used to play the game, and more about the setting.

Not that I don't see the value for such things, but I'd prefer they not be in the rule books as it were. Though of course, they can easily be put online, and I'd very much welcome that. Then again, there's room for everything online, so that's not much of an endorsement. Still, I don't feel a need to repeat the Unearthed Arcana's social class thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When people say 4e is more videogame-y than 3e I assume they mean Donkey Kong and I'm like "What the hell are you talking about? 3e has rules for apes (MM pg268) and 4e doesn't*!!!"

I am excellent at arguing on the internet.


*Unless they are in MM2 or something, I've not read it.