WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In object oriented programming a subroutine is treated as an object that can be passed around by the code. So for example you might pass the subroutine for damage the name of a weapon and it will return the damage done by that weapon. So you send the [W] object [longsword] and it sends you back [1d8].

4e, with its use of keywords(push, slide), subroutine call like language (IE: 3[W] + Str damage), and arbitrary units (squares) reads more like code than normal english. One of my first thoughts on reading the rules book was that you could just feed the whole powers section to a decent parser and you wouldn't even have to retype it to have programmed it.

Subroutine? I thought they used this term only in Startrek these days.

My object oriented programming language have stuff like methods, objects, classes, interfaces, properties, fields, attributes, indexes, arrays, generics and what-not, but no subroutines.

Subroutine Passing is actually not exactly a primary technique in most OO languages, and it is more something done in functional languages. (though with some environments and programming languages, the definitions begin to blur.)

What is passed around are objects that have methods (or subroutines/functions in some languages).

An OO approach would be to have a class called "Power". Keywords might describe interfaces it implements, like:

public class Tide of Iron implements Power, IMartial, IWeapon
{
  public void Resolve(IWeapon weapon, ICharacter usingChar, ICreature target)
  {
     int attack = Dice.Roll(20) + weapon.Attack + usingChar.Strength;
     if (attack >= target.AC) 
     {
         int damage = weapon.dice.roll() + char.Strength().
         target.InflictDamage(damage, DamageType.Untyped);
         Location x = Prompt.AskPushDirection(Localization.("Where do you 
                          want the target to move?", target, myPushConstraints), 
         target.PushTo(x);
     }
  }
}

 

[Hereticus]

And the people pointing out clear, unassaible change to the design of 2e-3e era D&D elements to line up to fairly unique WoWisms. I think that camp has both major fanboys of 4e and those who don't like it so much, most of which have a decent amount of WoW expeinece.

And there is the camp, pretending to be "above" the petty conflict and trying to act superior by casting the conversation into a dichotomy it doesn't fit in.

You know how correct they are, and I believe you also know what the result of a debate with them would be. Are you familiar with the saying "winning an argument on the internet is like winning an event at..."?

Anyone who has been following what Rechan has been posting knows that he is a fan of 4.0E, and that he has seen alot of first-hand resentment to the game, mostly in the form of comparing it in a negative manner to WoW.

I know this because I was one of the people who made that comparison. I had not given 4.0E a fair evaluation, and I was not a video game player. So I used WoW (the most popular game) and linked the two together, because the parts of 4.0E I did not like seemed video gamish to me.

I jumped to a quick conclusion bashed two things I did not like with one statement.

I realize that their was error in that complaint, and have since apologized and tried to get more precise with the fewer criticisms I do have.

 

[resistor]

Subroutine Passing is actually not exactly a primary technique in most OO languages, and it is more something done in functional languages. (though with some environments and programming languages, the definitions begin to blur.)

I don't think he meant passing subroutines as parameters (which would normally be called Higher-Order Functions), but rather just the idea of having functions that take data parameters.

 

[Hereticus]

For those who disagree with the 4.0E and WoW comparison, do you believe that 4.0E has more of a video game feel than earlier editions?

You know, I like this question far less than I like the World of Warcraft comparison, simply because it is far more nebulous and vague. Considering the incredibly diverse variety of videogames out on the market today, trying to compare different versions of D&D to "a videogame" with no other qualifiers is like trying to compare different versions of D&D to "a book", without even specifying what genre or period of books you are making the comparison to. And on that level, the only real comparison you can make is concerning the inherent differences between the mediums themselves, which are almost always absolute. D&D is a tabletop RPG, not a videogame, and those two mediums are inherently different in the way people experience them. Directly comparing the mediums themselves gets you nowhere.

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.

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.

Other than that sentiment, I will agree with Fanaelialae. The important thing is a general progression of what people think is fun and what is considered good game design.

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.

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?

 

[Bumbles]

For those who disagree with the 4.0E and WoW comparison, do you believe that 4.0E has more of a video game feel than earlier editions?

Define video game. ET for the 2600 was a video game. And no, 4E is not a poorly put together exercise in mindless tedium that frustrated thousands into tears. I also don't think it caused the producing company to bury truckloads of the product either.

 

[tylerthehobo]

Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point. We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games. Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.

 

[tylerthehobo]

I'll add that I play WoW and love it. I just don't like mixing my two hobbies to the point where the lines are beyond blurred.

 

[Bumbles]

Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point. We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games. Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.

Ok, why? And what solution would you suggest? Would you prefer that 4E feature some way for all classes to fill each different role, or just allow a number of other roles? What problems do you think that might cause?

And before I forget, how would you say the situation was different in prior editions?

 

[malraux]

Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point. We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games. Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.

But isn't that something that WoW doesn't do? Unless you are talking about City of Heroes, but it seems odd to arbitrarily say that DnD cannot every have a mechanic that was used in a video game ever.

Beyond which why is it bunk that classes are assigned a role? Not assigning roles can certainly lead to problems with classes that can cover many roles at once while others can have at most 1 (or even none). It's certainly gamist to have niche protection, but not just video gamist, virtually all modern games try to have some sort of niche protection.

 

[Nymrohd]

I don't really think Warcraft actually has the four roles. Sure you have defenders and strikers but you don't have leaders but rather healers (healing specs in WoW don't do much other than leading and they have precious few unique buffs to offer other than healing throughput), and control is rather limited (almost all strikers can debuff to a similar degree and actual control elements are limited and secondary to your striker role).