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

[Dinkeldog]

They're not that different at low levels.

Yeah, they are. Arcane missiles is channeled, so if you're attacked (and don't have the talent), you lose effect, but have already spent the mana. Shadowbolt is closer to fireball/frostbolt. All three are delayed in casting when attacked, but no mana is spent until completion.

If dwarves in 4e had blunderbusses and all elves were dark skinned and from the jungle, then IMO there wouldn't be a joke. It's just an observation of which elements in 4E are obviously influenced from Blizzard's innovations in the genre.

Not seeing much coming from WoW to 4E. Hunter's marks aren't like the marks we've had described in 4E. Target marking in a group is really, really different from the marks we've had described in 4E. Aggro control works completely differently in WoW from what we've had described in 4E.

I would argue the other way. WoW is clearly influenced by D&D. Class/race combination, increasing levels by gaining xp, which increases hp and power. Kill things and take their stuff. Now, if 4E starts putting in mote farming and rep farming, you might have a point.

 

[jtrowell]

Moreover, it has been revealed that during the beta test of *3rd* edition, they had made magic missille need a ranged touch attack (much like the later orb spells), but that some beta testers (grognards from the time) had said "that it wasn't d&d anymore" to remove the auto-hit, and that's why MM is one of the only damage spells without neitheir a save nor an attack roll.

Surely the dev at WotC stole the idea from WoW when they were making 3rd edition ?

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Actually, there are roles in WoW. They are part of the system. Except Blizzard calls them "Type". While names like Tank, DPS, and Healer might have originally been fan-created titles, WoW does support these Types and defines each class as being a specific type.

Take a look here. http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/classes/index.html

It lists all the classes, then tells you what role they fill, or what type of class they are, to give new players who are unfamiliar some idea. The even call the Warrior a Primary Tank. The Mage is a Primary Ranged Magic Damage Dealer. Except you would never name a class "Primary Ranged Magic Damage Dealer" just like I would hope you would never name a class a "Striker".

They are all descrptive text of roles that are filled

 

[keterys]

Although, amusingly those roles can be changed with respec, such that warriors can also be primary DPS, druids can be heal, dps, or tank, priests can be heals or dps, etc.

I'll give the role nod for similarity, however. It's just a codification of the jobs people expect and want in fantasy gaming... it's been in since original D&D, it just wasn't in as rigidly defined and balanced.

 

[lutecius]

If dwarves in 4e had blunderbusses and all elves were dark skinned and from the jungle, then IMO there wouldn't be a joke. It's just an observation of which elements in 4E are obviously influenced from Blizzard's innovations in the genre.

well, there is this eladrin in R&C that looks suspiciously like a blood elf

Of course that doesn't make dnd wow, but the new "elves" do remind me of the night elves too.
I know "nature elves" is not such a breakthrough concept, i can't tell if it's the art or some of the fluff. I like the elf/eladrin distinction anyway.

There is also the whole debate on the tiefling. For me the similarity is not so much the draenei as the generic anime look.

I suspect it's the accumulation of little things that remind people of wow.

More seriously, I don't care what comes from wow as long as it works for dnd. What I do mind is the marks' generality and clunky justifications.

 

[AverageCitizen]

It would be difficult to change DnD into an MMO without wide scale brain surgery removing rational thought, abstract thinking, and imagination.

I'm a fan of MMOs, but I've always thought they're greatest weakness was that the entire game was one moment frozen in time, to be explored and replayed for ever and ever. In Everquest they are still fighting the same battle on Orc Hill that has been raging for the last... what, 15 years? The few changes that they make in an attempt to simulate actual continuity are diminished by the fact that every character I've played in WoW has killed Edwin Vancleef at least four times.

A close second is the lack of realistic AI, which, as has already been pointed out, is a deliberate decision on the part of the designers. They could make the AI fight intelligently and respond to any threat within its line of sight, but they decided to go on incredibly stupid opponents so that they would be more predictable. They follow strict formulas, which allow them to be controlled by the players. If they even added a random element, not intelligence, just randomization, combat in WoW would be a completely different experience.

In a good DnD campaign, the world the characters live in will be in a state constant flux, with consequences for action and inaction whether the players like it or not. The enemies will respond with intelligence, cunning, or savagery, depending on what the situation merits. Even a poor DM will almost automatically simulate these realities better than WoW does.

It doesn't matter if you take every single ability and class from WoW and directly port it to the tabletop, its still going to be completely different from the MMO, just by virture of the DM's creativity and the player's imagination. So... really, I don't think these concerns hold any real weight.

PS: I don't agree with the idea that the Fighter/Paladin tanking talents are effectively identical to taunts, because the DM will still have the choice to persue the action anyway. I can see many, many situations where an enemy would be willing to sacrifice its own well-being or tactical position to take down a caster, or a healer, or whatever.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Aggro mechanics

I don't think the MMORPG designers actually have a choice. I've said this before, but how would you design a mechanic so that the tanks can protect the squishies? Especially when the squishies are more dangerous?

If they got rid of "threat", there really is no way that I can see due to the HP model of combat. In real life, nobody is going to walk around a bodyguard and let him get in one attack. That's simply suicide.

Its much harder in D&D where said opponent is a Giant and needs 10 hits to take down with a sword.

 

[Hussar]

Something I learned in that Anime Challenge thread I did was that everything is circular. Every idea simply swims from one pond to the next and then back again. Trying to trace the starting point is mostly an exercise in futility. Anime copied Disney and now comics sometimes borrow from anime. And back and forth it goes.

The same goes with game design. Of course there are similarities. Both are attempting similar goals - creating a playspace where the players kill stuff and take their loot. D&D has ALWAYS borrowed from every possible source available. Once upon a time that meant mostly novels and short stories. Then movies. Then video games. Not a big issue really.

 

[Will]

AverageCitizen:
While I've loved a lot of MMOs, it's precisely those continuity gaps that really encouraged me to shift back to RPing online. That, and bears with plate armor stuck up their urethras.

Though a few games buck the trends: Eve Online, for example, relies on PvP to produce a changing landscape where you really can just carve out a territory and declare it yours.

 

[Hairfoot]

4E plays NOTHING like WoW.

I agree. It plays like Diablo.