D&D and World of Warcraft (Not a Rant)

[Bishmon]

However, I am concerned that it is possible to go too far. Computers do certain things well, and certain elements of play are more fun witha computer to back them up. Likewise, human beings do certain things well, and certain elements of play are more fun with humans backing them up. I am not convicned, however, that the 4e design team has fully realized this and some of the elements they are borrowing from MMOs and other ERPGs will actually bog the game down and create an unsatisfying play experience.

Such as...

 

[Gundark]

That was going to be the overall point I was trying to make with the thread. It is much ado about nothing, fantasy gaming is fantasy gaming of course there will be crossover. I could compare Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, Warcraft, Diablo, D&D, Hackmaster, Slayers (anime), and Game of Thrones (novel) and draw alot of comparisons.

I agree, however people are gonna whine just the same. It's silly, espcially from the ones who havn't played a MMORPG and still make the claim.

 

[PeterWeller]

My guess/hope is that the defender/striker dichotomy will be like that. D&D4 fighters (and other defender classes) will be as good as or better than rogues at dealing damage, but they'll pretty much have to fight whichever enemy comes to the front to fight them. They can't move past the enemy warriors to hit the evil wizard without eating some AoO's, or whatever mechanic 4e uses to discourage people from doing that sort of thing. Rogues won't deal more damage than fighters, but they'll have abilities like tumbling through threatened areas that let them get to where their damage can do the most good.

This is my guess/hope as well, since it seems to follow naturally from how Rogues (strikers) and Fighters (defenders) have developed over the course of the game's history.

 

[Orcus]

I'm not a huge WoW fan. I dont like the "cartoony-ness." But that doesnt mean I dont like MMOs. I am currently massively addicted to Lord of the Rings Online. And I think there is a TON that table top D&D can learn from these types of games.

I see their influence in 4E:

1. party roles (very MMO).
2. a little power bump at 1st level--not just 5 hit points.
3. wider level spread (50 in Lotro, 60+ in WoW) vs. 12 in 1-2E and 20 in 3E now 30 in 4E.
4. my guess is that you will level a bit quicker to about level 8 or so, like the way WoW/Lotro gets you to level 10 pertty fast.
5. Get something every level.
6. More interesting powered abilities for all classes--incorporate moves and other abilities to really help define the class
7. advanceable monsters--you can fight orcs at early levels and at higher levels
8. elites and signatures, etc.
9. terminology--someone already mentioned this and it is true. the way we talk about fantasy roleplaying is being influenced by MMOs.

Frankly, I think there is a lot for D&D to learn from MMOs (not just WoW, which I think people use because it has such a bad rap--too young, too anime, too lowest common denominator, too much about phat lootz, etc). The one thing that MMOs can do is simply log the hours of gaming in a controlled environment to see what works and doesnt work. There is no hiding a weakness of a class or a mechanic or a rule in MMOs. There are thousands of people online playing it all the time in a way the D&D just doesnt get tested. And the lessons learned from that is invaluable. And there are things that MMOs can do that D&D will never be able to do well--the statistical complexity of effects and things is crazy and a computer can calculate on the fly effects and things that would grind a table top game group to a 20 minute halt.

That said, the table top experience of a computer DM will always be a different experience from a tabletop game. And there are some things a MMO does because it is not a table top RPG. As long as we keep those things in mind, I think there is a ton that can be learned from MMOs.

Clark

 

[hong]

Wait, I was going to talk about more similarities than just that one, wasn't I? Well, let's see. Warriors in GW play very differently depending on which weapon they use, while still filling more or less the same role on a team. Most abilities are somewhere between at-will and per-encounter, consuming a resource that you start each fight with a certain amount of and regain throughout the fight at a modest rate. There are support classes that have tactically interesting and highly active roles in combat. Spellcasters can use their wands and staves to zap enemies without spending any resources. Encounters (non-PVP ones) often use multiple types of enemies that work together in interesting ways. Many fights are set up with significant terrain features and things to do besides just hacking away at the enemy.

It's mainly the roles stuff that makes me think of Guild Wars; the rest is mostly superficial, I think. GW does a good job of having a variety of classes performing different but useful roles on a team, each interesting to play in its own way, without any one being strictly necessary. D&D could do worse than to take some ideas from that.

Yep. A few more things:

- GW deliberately deemphasises your gear, so that most people will be using half a dozen items at most. This can be contrasted to The Game That Shall Not Be Named, which (AIUI) has a lot more slots for stuff.

- It also deemphasises the grind aspect of most MMOs. Most notably in GW: Factions, you hit the level cap about 1/4 of the way in.

- The points-of-light atmosphere really comes across in GW thanks to the heavily instanced nature of the game. Once you leave the chatrooms towns, it's just you and a zillion monsters that want to eat your face. You won't run into random PCs while trekking in the wilderness.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The funny thing about the WoW criticisms is that the stuff that people complain about, for the most part, are things it does LESS than EQ1 before it did. It's a much more reasonable game, which is why it's so successful. (Nothing like spending 6 hours trying to recover your body when you wiped in the Plane of Fear on a work night. Wheee ... are we having fun yet?)

 

[Gloombunny]

1. party roles (very MMO).

Yeah, nobody ever talked about needing a meatshield, a healer, or a traps guy before they played WoW.

2. a little power bump at 1st level--not just 5 hit points.

People have been complaining about the fragility and incompetence of first-level D&D characters for decades. It's a pretty obvious design decision to ameliorate that a bit. I don't think you can reasonably call this one videogame influence.

3. wider level spread (50 in Lotro, 60+ in WoW) vs. 12 in 1-2E and 20 in 3E now 30 in 4E.

Basic D&D had 36 levels, and rules for going beyond that.

And, wait, AD&D 1e and 2e only had 12 levels? What now?

4. my guess is that you will level a bit quicker to about level 8 or so, like the way WoW/Lotro gets you to level 10 pertty fast.

Ok. Why do you guess that?

5. Get something every level.

Getting something every level isn't a standard feature of level-based video games.

6. More interesting powered abilities for all classes--incorporate moves and other abilities to really help define the class

I guess this one's a fair call. Although I would consider it a very beneficial idea for D&D to incorporate.

7. advanceable monsters--you can fight orcs at early levels and at higher levels

How is this more true of 4e than of 3e? If anything it sounds like 4e will have less of this, since they're getting away from the "build monsters like PCs" rules.

8. elites and signatures, etc.

This one went over my head. Not sure what it's referring to.

9. terminology--someone already mentioned this and it is true. the way we talk about fantasy roleplaying is being influenced by MMOs.

Much of the MMO terminology was drawn from tabletop game jargon in the first place.

That said, the table top experience of a computer DM will always be a different experience from a tabletop game. And there are some things a MMO does because it is not a table top RPG. As long as we keep those things in mind, I think there is a ton that can be learned from MMOs.

Now on this we agree! But I'm getting a bit tired of people pointing at any and every aspect of D&D4 and calling it MMO-based just because something similar showed up in an MMO once.

 

[Jack99]

I see their influence in 4E:

1. party roles (very MMO).
2. a little power bump at 1st level--not just 5 hit points.
3. wider level spread (50 in Lotro, 60+ in WoW) vs. 12 in 1-2E and 20 in 3E now 30 in 4E.
4. my guess is that you will level a bit quicker to about level 8 or so, like the way WoW/Lotro gets you to level 10 pertty fast.
5. Get something every level.
6. More interesting powered abilities for all classes--incorporate moves and other abilities to really help define the class
7. advanceable monsters--you can fight orcs at early levels and at higher levels
8. elites and signatures, etc.
9. terminology--someone already mentioned this and it is true. the way we talk about fantasy roleplaying is being influenced by MMOs.

I must admit that I disagree with most of your points above.

1. Couldn't you say that the party roles have always existed in DnD, and that the designers have merely put a label on it now?
2. Is that very MMO? Only played EQ, DAoC and WoW myself, but dont recall the low levels tbh.
3. The level spread isnt really any wider in 4e. There was plenty of level 20+ characters in both 3e and 2e. (Never played 1e much, so I dont recall)
4. Guesswork. I think the progression will be linear. No need to bump the powerlevel at level 1 AND make people level faster.
5. This was true for most classes in 3e as well.
7. This was possible and encouraged in 3e as well

 

[Reynard]

Now on this we agree! But I'm getting a bit tired of people pointing at any and every aspect of D&D4 and calling it MMO-based just because something similar showed up in an MMO once.

Out of curiosity, why are you tired of that? If I look at the information we have been given about 4E as of now and immediately my gut says "video-gamey"or MMO-ism, even if I can't define why, because I am more than passingly familiar with both RPGs and ERPGs, why is that skin off your nose? What does me doing that as a kind of shorthand for why 4E worries me a great deal do to offend you?

Because here's the thing: the game as has been presented, with its awesome powerups and every-body-is-cool-all-the-time paradigm and focus on immediate short term high octane action make me think "video-gamey" and MMO-ism. And it bothers me, because that isn't what D&D does well, it is what video games do well.

EDIT: I guess it is a broader question -- why do many pro 4E people get immediately offended when a comparison is drawn between 4E and WoW or MMOs in general or ERPGs in general, even when someone makes the compariosn in a positive light?

 

[rounser]

Because here's the thing: the game as has been presented, with its awesome powerups and every-body-is-cool-all-the-time paradigm and focus on immediate short term high octane action make me think "video-gamey" and MMO-ism. And it bothers me, because that isn't what D&D does well, it is what video games do well.

A lot of money is being invested in a D&D MMO, so I guess they're thinking it had better do the video games thing well.

Does one size fit all? In the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter if one size doesn't fit all if "leveraging the D&D brand" is the objective, which it most likely is. Remember how small a hobby tabletop RPGs are. A minnow. Easy decision to definitely cleave to the needs of a miniatures game and MMORPG and compromise the tabletop, because it makes marketing sense.