D&D 4E 4E is like WoW (NOT!)

[Nahat Anoj]

"Monsters running in to join the encounter makes sense--especially given a) the scenario and b) recent 3.5 adventures--but it still feels like drawing aggro in an MMO. I'm not sure how I feel about that."

WAIT, you mean to tell me I was drawing aggro SINCE 1st edition?

It's painful to admit, but yes, you have. Any time you had a monster call out for help, then had nearby monsters joining the fray, that was drawing aggro. Or any time monsters investigated a disturbance (ie, the PCs making a lot of racket), that, too, was drawing aggro. However, acceptance of your problem is the first step towards recovery - I'm impressed with your growth as a gamer.



Incidentally, that statement you quoted also makes me want to shake my head in bewilderment. I'd like some clarification into what kind of game they play. Do they have it so that each room is in complete isolation from the other, or that monsters won't respond to a disturbance or a cry for help from their allies? That strikes me as patently unrealistic.

 

[Gundark]

4E plays NOTHING like WoW. Have people EVER played WoW when they make this statement?

I find very few. Very very few. Generally without even stopping to consider "is this a good thing?" , it's always bad. I even seen an industry proffesional make this claim (which was dissapointing to see considering I expected the person to know better).

I play WoW and yes there are similarites, however considering they're a similiar beast...all I have to say is "duh"

 

[HeinorNY]

The parallels that do exist have been drawn many times before.
Here's a quick recap:
• Class roles like Striker (DPS), Defender (Tank), Leader (Healer/Buffer), and Controller (CC).

There are no roles in WoW, only class builds that are fan made conventions. The 'roles' are not part of the system. In D&D the classes are built and design around the roles.

• Marking foes (hunter's mark, raid marking).

Marks in D&D are defensive abilities. Nothing to do with WoW marks besides the term. Raid marking is even a metagame convention.

• Abilities that let the tanks hold aggro.

There is no aggro in D&D as there is no threat level mechanic. There is the DM instead of poor AI.

• Paragon Paths = talent builds.

Talent trees are older than WoW. Paragon paths are just new prestige classes.

Most of those mistakes could be solved by playing WoW for 5 minutes. Here, try it

 

[keterys]

That quote was from a playtest game using the PHB Lite and Raiders of Oakhurst that some game designers did. The game designer in question has been, as far as I can tell, biased against 4E from the start (and is a good guy, and has some reasons, but still biased).

Curiously, the 'aggro' mechanic is the adventure itself, but the reasons he gave for not enjoying the 4E session were mostly due to misplayed rules and to some parts of the adventure setup itself.

He _does_ play a lot of WoW, however, so he's not speaking from ignorance on that angle. I believe he also helped work on a card game (and some other video games) so while I think he's being biased and using more than a little hyperbole, if he felt like it too much like WoW / card game, he was not speaking from ignorance.

 

[Revinor]

There are no roles in WoW, only class builds that are fan made conventions. The 'roles' are not part of the system. In D&D the classes are built and design around the roles.

WoW is designed and build around the roles. Almost all the nerfs/buffs happening in patches are done for given classes to fit it's role better.

Only different in WoW is that one class can fit multiple roles depending on build - but still not all. Warrior can be tank (protection) or dps (fury), but not crowd control or healer. Priest can be healer or dps, but not tank. Druid can try it's strengths as dps, tank or healer, but will never be crowd control.

Even armor sets for classes are done in the way of class-role-tier. (warrior-tank, or warrior-dps). Go to http://www.wow-europe.com/en/info/basics/armorsets/ and see variations of 6 tier armor sets - "Set Specialization" is exactly a role.

There is no aggro in D&D as there is no threat level mechanic. There is the DM instead of poor AI.

There is no aggro, but they went as close as possible. Defender marks are similar to WoW taunts - they are a tool to keep aggro on yourself instead of squishies. In WoW, it was done by threat level, in D&D it is done by making possibility of attacking somebody else then defender bad tactical choice. Implementation is different, idea is the same.

Talent trees are older than WoW. Paragon paths are just new prestige classes.

I have to fully agree here. Both WoW and D&D 4th ed are total Diablo ripoffs.
Paragon paths are new prestige classes, I don't see any WoWism in them.

 

[shadowguidex]

• Class roles like Striker (DPS), Defender (Tank), Leader (Healer/Buffer), and Controller (CC).

Those class roles have always been implicit in Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone who has ever played a cleric knows that it was his role to heal the party. Everyone who has ever played a fighter knew that it was his role to get a blade on the enemies and keep them away from the casters. None of this was new to WoW, but WoW (actually Everquest) was forced to create a mechanic to allow a dumb AI to know who to attack.

• Named powers for all classes.

Gotta call your abilities something. D&D has always had a multitude of terms for abilities: Weapon Specialization, Cleave, Backstab, Species Enemy, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Counterspell, Feint, Rage, Ki Strike, Quivering Palm, Death Attack, Lay on Hands, etc.

In fact, many many terms that WoW uses originates from D&D, not the other way around: Backstab, Lay on Hands, Cleave, Feint, Counterspell, etc.

• Marking foes (hunter's mark, raid marking).

This area is the greatest place where we see D&D taking inspiration from MMOs like WoW, I agree here, although the ONLY "marks" that WoW has is the Hunter's Mark, then meaningless symbols you can assign to targets (Can't count DoTs because WoW didn't invent them). D&D has taken the concept of specific monster targeting and expanded the premise with special abilities relevant to your foe, like Warlocks Curse, Ranger's Quarry, Fighter's Mark, Paladin' Mark. I think this is the one area where the WoW system of creature targeting has inspired D&D, but WoW does not actually utilize marks to the extent that D&D 4E seems to be taking them. In WoW, marking for a striker (DPS) means targeting that foe and attacking it - WoW's "Strikers" don't need to further differentiate their target because you can only target one creature at a time.

• Abilities that let the tanks hold aggro.

WoW has the inherent concept of aggro that the dumb AI needs to successfully work. The "tanks" have not just one mark, but TONS of abilities that keep the monster's attention on the warrior. Take the Warrior for example, they have not only Taunt, but: Revenge, Heroic Strike, Shield Slam, Devastate, Sunder Armor, Mocking Blow, Thunderclap, Cleave, etc.

D&D only has the mark, that's it. The Mark doesn't force the opponent to attack the fighter, it just makes the fighter a more likely target (-2 vs. other opponents). In general, the idea that the menacing fighter in the front causes a bit on concern to his target is fairly spot on. If you got a dude in your face attacking you constantly, you can't really disengage easily to go attack someone else.

This is NOTHING like WoW where the aggro is king. DMs have all the luxury in the world of just ignoring the mark and attack whatever they enjoy. I have utilized the idea of intelligent targeting in my games, whereby my monsters will use tactics loosely based on their intelligence. If the foe is a dumb-as-hell ogre he will wail on the first guy he sees expecting to demolish that target - He is too stupid to pick out the true threats. The Lich on the other hand, is crafty enough to know that the healer is the most important target and will make sure he focuses his attention where the true threat lies. In WoW, intelligence targeting doesn't work and isn't possible, and therefore D&D can present truly sinister threats that WoW just cannot.

• Paragon Paths = talent builds.

And Talents = Kits. I played my old Battlerager from the brown kit books in 2E LONG before WoW was conceptualized. Battlerager, Vindicator, Bladesinger etc. The Skills and Powers book increased the customization to 2E characters as well. Customization of your basic class was not invented by WoW, not by a long shot, so don't credit them with that.

-----

I have played WoW since release and I love the game, but I never...and I mean never...miss my D&D games on Fridays, because they are far and away my favorite hobby. WoW and D&D share a genre, and a few terms and concepts, but that's about it. The basis for comparison can only be formulated by assessing the computer code of WoW with the written rules for D&D, but from that point onward they totally diverge. Tabletop gaming and computer gaming never feels similar to me, but they are both very fun in their own unique ways.

 

[AllisterH]

But IT PLAYS NOTHING like WoW. That's my point and I stand behind it.

Are you sure Sean Reynolds actually plays WoW because I've played EQ, UO and WoW and the 4E system is so far from these it's not even close.

The marking system is nothing close to the aggro/taunt mechanic. I can't simply walk up next to the fighter in melee and have the monster ignore me even though I'm doing more damage.

Hell in MMORPGs, you can walk up to many monsters and they'll just sit there and not attack you, even worse, your party can start attacking the monster and it'll ignore you until you attack. Think you can do the same in D&D?

I mean, I've played D&D before and NEVER have I've been in a situation where the monster can SEE me kicking the crap out of its brethren yet wont attack since I'm not in its "area".

The roles have ALWAYS come from D&D itself and the terms themselves were stolen straight from D&D. Do Sean R et al honestly think the term "defender/tank" come from a MMORPG origin. I've been seeing these terms since 1E. (That said, DPS is one term I've never seen in a RPG until MMORPGs, so that is one term I give to WoW. Striker/Buffer/Controller? NOT A CHANCE)

the movement based nature of the PCs only works for a turn-based, square-based system (I'm not sure the turn-based nature of Baldur's Gate/Goldbox series would actually translate well. Maybe the old AOL Neverwinter Nights? That was both turn-based and somewhat grid-based)


re: Aggro mechanic
There's a good article a few years back where a designer on EQ as talking about this. He had never played D&D before and was honestly baffled as to how a fighter was supposed to keep the monster focused on him when the mage was a) much more squishier and b) much more dangerous.

THAT is the birth of the aggro mechanic and I honestly don't blame them. Without a lenient DM, how did pre-AoO did non-lenients DMs NOT focus on the wizard?

 

[catsclaw]

We'll know how closely 4e mimics WoW by the first table you play at at a con. If one player hands the DM a sheet of paper that says "I find the nearest mining node, and mine it. Then I repeat." and leaves the table, and another player starts yelling at all the other players to buy his gold, then yeah--it's a WoW clone.

Short of that, you're not really getting the MMO experience.

 

[Zinovia]

Most of those mistakes could be solved by playing WoW for 5 minutes. Here, try it

Thanks, but as I mentioned in my post (if you read past the first bulleted points) I've played WoW for some time now, and EQ longer than that. While I don't have time to be in a hard-core raid guild, raiding is still one of my favorite aspects of MMO's, and our guild is 3/4 in the Eye, and 5/6 in SSC. Also you will in no way get a complete feeling of what it's like to play WoW if you just play for 5 minutes, nor would you with D&D.

I'm not pointing those parallels out in any negative way. There are similarities shared between the game because both are fantasy role-playing games derived from the same wargamers who decided to play with dragons and magic instead of recreating Napoleonic battles. There are bound to be many shared elements, and that's just as it should be. Everyone sitting down to either game for the first time should have a good idea what some of the iconic classes, races, and roles will be.

The class roles may not be expressly spelled out in the official WoW rules, but they are there, and they are real. They are used to give orders in raids all the time - "Melee DPS should back off as soon as the mob starts to Whirlwind", "Healers stand over there", "Off-tanks use area taunt to grab the adds as soon as they pop". Adding similar designations to 4E is likely to be a good thing, as it helps to define roles played in combat.

I'm glad that 4E is doing something to make defenders better able to defend their party. The Hunter's Mark Quarry is something I'm more ambivalent about, but we'll wait and see on that one. That it may be a good thing doesn't mean it isn't a similar mechanic in both games, and hence a valid comparison.

There *are* parallels, do don't try and wish them away. The more salient question to ask is "Is that a bad thing?" Personally I don't think that it will be, but I'll wait to play 4E before making that determination.

 

[mhensley]

It's not like WoW until you can buy gold pieces from Chinese players.