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

[AllisterH]

Erm, which edition of Champions was this, then? I certainly never saw anything like that. The closest you'd get to that was people talking about "bricks," "flying energy blasters," "mentalists" and the like ... but those were descriptions of how the characters were built, not what their purpose in the party was.

-The Gneech

Not one edition of Champions has the roles listed.

However, if I ask you to build a Scrapper or a Tank using Champions, are you actually going to say "I don't know what those terms means?".

I've played Champions and that's how the terms were explained to me and that's BEFORE CoH.

Seriously, was I the only one in the world that used these terms pre MMORPGs?

 

[Belphanior]

If anything, 4e seems to play like the (free) flash-based Dofus mmorpg. Which is a big compliment, because I just love Dofus.
* Several classes that can heal, but not the exclusion of other useful abilities in combat.
* Combat is turn-based, done in squares, and mobility is a huge part of the tactics.
* Working together through buffing, positioning, and concentrating fire has a good pay-off.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

That just means that WoW, and MMOs in general, are static worlds. Where D&D is dynamic (as long as the DM wants it to be). I don't think anyone is arguing that. What they are arguing are the other similiar factors between the two. Specific mechanics and themes. Just because there are many many differences between the two doesn't mean there aren't a few similiarities. All you did was prove there is a differnce, not disprove there are similiarities.

Well, if they borrowed a few mechanics, and it improves the game, that's all to the good.

When people say "it's just like WoW," they're criticizing it by implying that adoption of any mechanics will make it a static world where role-playing is impossible.

That, itself, is an absurd argument. If you remove that supremely dippy conclusion, then saying that specific mechanics are like WoW is no more a condemnation of 4e as a role-playing engine than saying 4e is nothing but a game of craps because they both use six-sided dice.

Similar mechanics here and there, but overall, utterly different results.

 

[Zinovia]

What I have learned

I have learned that putting up a bulleted list is akin to painting a bulls-eye on my post with a sign saying "Aim Here! Points now broken down for easier rebuttal! No need to read the rest of the post, or take it in context!".

I have also learned that If I want to make a point, I apparently need to be a lot more clear with caveats, warnings, disclaimers of "I don't see this as a problem", and the like. Any comparison between 4E and pretty much anything else will summon swarms of 4E supporters to the defense like acacia tree ants defending their tree even if nothing actually negative was said or intended.

The purpose of my post was to rebut the notion that the aggro mechanic was in any way similar in WoW or D&D 4E and to summarize some of the points where legitimate comparisons could be drawn. There are parallels between the games, but I never said "D&D is copying from WoW" or vice versa. Nor did I claim that the parallels were in any way bad. They Do Exist. That is Okay.

Who on earth *cares* what color Magic Missiles were in any edition of D&D? When I first played WoW and saw the Arcane Missile spell, it made me think of Magic Missile. A spell that casts multiple orbs of pure energy named Arcane Missile? Clearly it was inspired by Magic Missile from D&D.

I never played 2nd edition, so the idea of talent builds was new to me when I first played WoW. I don't know if it was conceived of elsewhere before that, and you know what? I don't really care. It is still a similarity shared between the systems - even if the implementation isn't precisely the same.

Many of the features shared between the games are non-issues to me. Some of them are positives. I like that class roles are being clearly defined to help construct a party that will be effective. I also agree that those roles have always been implicit in D&D.

WoW is like D&D in many ways, and not at all like it in others. The converse is also true. They are fantasy RPG's, so there should be many points they share in common. If they played exactly the same there would be no need for anyone to play both games. Yet many people do. D&D may well have a few things it can learn from WoW. WoW has already taken much from D&D. Pointing out the similarities they share is not an attack on either system.

 

[Jack99]

I have learned that putting up a bulleted list is akin to painting a bulls-eye on my post with a sign saying "Aim Here! Points now broken down for easier rebuttal! No need to read the rest of the post, or take it in context!".

Welcome to the interweb!

JK. But some of your bullet points were either very wrong, or very poorly worded, which led to some people arguing against them.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Respec akin to retraining? Dude, you can't be serious.

If you can't see how they are similiar to each other, I don't know what more anyone can say. They both serve the same fuction, to re-arrange things you previously selected. The most common would be feats for D&D vs Talents for WoW. Except you can re-arrange a lot more than feats with retraining.

 

[RigaMortus2]

When people say "it's just like WoW," they're criticizing it by implying that adoption of any mechanics will make it a static world where role-playing is impossible.

And this I agree with you on. The farthist *I* would personally say is that 4E has basically copied a specific mechanic/aspect from WoW. Not that they play the same. For example, the roles. It's one thing that we as players call a Fighter a 'tank'. That is a very meta-game thing to do. But once you put it in print, its like WotC is endorsing this meta-gamey aspect and writing them into the rules. And it doesn't matter if they call a 'tank' a Defender, the concept is the same. I think we all know what role a Fighter fills (they certainly are not the healers or magic damage dealers) w/o having to define them as a 'tank' or "defender'. Even a new player should know what the basic concept of a Fighter is, and if they don't, maybe fantasy RPGs are not for them? Do we really need it written down somewhere in the PHB these 4 different roles?

I am just playing devil's advocate here. I could care less about the whole roles thing. I am just using it as the best example I can think of where to me it looks like 4E took a cocept from MMOs (I am not even saying specifically WoW). And yeah, we did call them tanks back in 2E before MMOs existed, but again, that was something between players and DMs, not something between the PHB and players (like it is now). Now that it will be written in the PHB, WotC is endorsing this meta-gamey aspect.

 

[AllisterH]

If you can't see how they are similiar to each other, I don't know what more anyone can say. They both serve the same fuction, to re-arrange things you previously selected. The most common would be feats for D&D vs Talents for WoW. Except you can re-arrange a lot more than feats with retraining.

True. I give you that as I was thinking of rebuilding which is an entirely different thing in D&D.

However, it still doesn't answer my OP "How does 4e PLAY like WoW?" Things like "pulling aggro"? Come on....

re: Naming roles
Arguably, it would be hard to find a kid nowadays that didn't know what a fighter was given the existence of MMORPGs, WoW's influence on perception is going to colour EVERYTHING for most new D&D gamers.

(what would new gamers make of the fey gnomes that WOTC has been pushing. To many, gnomes are TINKERS.)

 

[keterys]

Except, in previous editions, other characters than the fighter often had as much or more tanking capability and in fact the only recourse of the fighter was to hope he wasn't ignored or possibly do a tripping spiked chain build (which got less and less effective at higher level due to size restrictions)

You also had archer fighters, two-handed pure damage fighters (who presumably just didn't like barbarian), and a _lot_ of dipping fighter purely for the feats not because of any interest in tanking at all.

So... as far as I can tell, the fighter wasn't effective at its role (or effective at all, depending on your game). Sounds like an improvement to me.

 

[OchreJelly]

For example, the roles. It's one thing that we as players call a Fighter a 'tank'. That is a very meta-game thing to do. But once you put it in print, its like WotC is endorsing this meta-gamey aspect and writing them into the rules. And it doesn't matter if they call a 'tank' a Defender, the concept is the same.

But is that a bad thing? I realize you're being devil's advocate so I will be imp to your devil. You said it yourself that new players probably recognize what a fighter "does". I would say this is true and it probably comes by virtue of 25+ years of fantasy video games, rpgs, books, comics, movies etc. The archetype is easily recognizable. Then why keep roles in the closet? Why not print it on the page in the PHB next to the class name? More importantly (but perhaps more subtly), why not have designers designing classes with an eye toward role from the ground up? If this gets us a better version of the bard or monk somewhere down the line, I'm all for it.

To me this 'meta-gameness' is the designers seeing how people actually play these games and addressing it directly. Writing 'role' on your sheet is no more meta-game than 'class', 'AC' or 'HP'.