Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5452725" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, my view evolved a little bit in my last reply to LostSoul.Let me evolve it a bit more in replying to this.I think WotC may have thought that, by using a few superficial WoW-isms, they could lure WoW players into fantasy RPGing.But I don't think that 4e is a game that will give a WoW experience, for all the reasons that many others have pointed out many times before. Some of the members of my group are among the most hardcore MMO/WoW players in Melbourne (based on online hours clocked up, early adoption etc) but play D&D for a very different experience.I really do think that WotC thought that these people - WoW players, CCG players, etc - would enjoy a non-simulationist, situation-based RPG. Like WoW it would have fantasy colour. Like CCG it would have a strong build-and-tactics element. Like an indie RPG it would use this colour and these mechanical features to drive situation-based play.Anyway, that for me is the best way of trying to understand the game. But I think they squibbed/flaked a bit in the DMG (like I posted upthread) and to a much greater extent in their modules (whereas I might be Robinson Crusoe in my diagnosis of the DMG, I think nearly everyone agrees on the modules).</blockquote>