Dave Noonan on WoW

[Krug]

I confess I play WOW a lot, but because my gameplay is very sporadic (one or two hours at a time) I've pretty much stopped raiding. I have an army of alts though. One 70 dwarf priestess, one 70 dwarf hunter, one 70 dwarf paladin (you see a trend), one 70 Orc warrior (worst class to level), one 66 draenai shaman and a 61 gnome warlock.

I still think WOW has a lousy framework for role-playing, and quite dependent on the players to do role-playing events. Frankly I wish we didn't kill Arthas so soon with the next expansion. It just seems our goal is to tear through the content that took so long to build up.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess what I love about the Orcs is that they aren't just bad guys like in most things. They're the fallen race trying to redeem themselves. Grom was one of the ones to start turning it around with helping Thrall and pushing him along.

Which is, incidentally, one of the ways that Blizzard has been influencing D&D for a decade.

The noble savage orc meme is definitely not a new thing in D&D at this point.

 

[Sunderstone]

Fwiw, it seems like alot of us play too much WoW to begin with. I really wish the glaring WoW influences (like in alot of the PH2, ex Knight class abilities, some feats and spells, or the alleged 4E classes that can use spells all the time) would steer clear from my D&D gaming table.

D&D goes back alot longer than WoW, I really dont think we need it imitating a video game to such a large extent. If I wanted to play a game like WoW, I'd play WoW.

 

[KingCrab]

I like the D&D themed childrens book idea.

For 4th edition specially: Are you there Asmodeus? It's me, Margaret.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Fwiw, it seems like alot of us play too much WoW to begin with. I really wish the glaring WoW influences (like in alot of the PH2, ex Knight class abilities, some feats and spells, or the alleged 4E classes that can use spells all the time) would steer clear from my D&D gaming table.

On the other hand, I hope game designers for any game -- D&D, WoW, Chutes & Ladders -- are unafraid of looking at good ideas, whatever their original source.

And the notion that it sucks to run out of things to do as a spellcaster goes back to the earliest days of the game. You can't blame WoW (or, really, any CRPG) for not embracing Vancian spellcasting.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't think there's any videogame that looks fun when you're just watching it.

Guitar Hero, SSX 3, Wii Sports . . .

Not that I disagree with your criticism of his argument.

 

[Reynard]

And the notion that it sucks to run out of things to do as a spellcaster goes back to the earliest days of the game. You can't blame WoW (or, really, any CRPG) for not embracing Vancian spellcasting.

D&D is a team based game, and was originally one of exploration and resource management. In addition, spell casters tended to sacrifice a lot early on for a great reward later. Sure, it's "unfun" to blow your magic missile in the first fight, but then the point wasn't just to fight, fight, fight. That same guy who got 1 magic missile spell was also the one who could read the arcane runes inscribed on the door or comprehend the nature of the vile sorcerer opposing the party. Before encounter/combat as the sole purpose of the game, characters (and players) had more to do that just beat on the mobs.

 

[AllisterH]

D&D is a team based game, and was originally one of exploration and resource management. In addition, spell casters tended to sacrifice a lot early on for a great reward later. Sure, it's "unfun" to blow your magic missile in the first fight, but then the point wasn't just to fight, fight, fight. That same guy who got 1 magic missile spell was also the one who could read the arcane runes inscribed on the door or comprehend the nature of the vile sorcerer opposing the party. Before encounter/combat as the sole purpose of the game, characters (and players) had more to do that just beat on the mobs.

Not it wasn't.

D&D was originally derived from a tactical wargames miniatures system. Roleplaying was talked on to it much later but the original goal of D&D was "kick the door down, kill the monsters and keep the loot".

It doesn't matter what "EXTRA" a class can bring to the table (sure, the mage could be the only one that can read the runes on the door but the fighter is probably the only one that knew what the heraldy on that castle meant and the bard knew the history) but it has to be useful in combat.

re: Influence of Videogames
Why is this a bad thing? I mean D&D has pretty much defined both console and computer RPGS to such an extent that people use the term "this is not like D&D" to highlight how different their product is.

Take Final Fantasy for example. WE in N.America pretty much have had experience only with FF7 and up, but in the 1st couple of Final Fantasy, the damn game was ripped straight out of the PHB (in deed, the magic users explicitly used the Vancian system along the lines of a sorceror).

Well, after feedback, they realized how much that bites and went to the mana system.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

D&D is a team based game, and was originally one of exploration and resource management. In addition, spell casters tended to sacrifice a lot early on for a great reward later. Sure, it's "unfun" to blow your magic missile in the first fight, but then the point wasn't just to fight, fight, fight. That same guy who got 1 magic missile spell was also the one who could read the arcane runes inscribed on the door or comprehend the nature of the vile sorcerer opposing the party. Before encounter/combat as the sole purpose of the game, characters (and players) had more to do that just beat on the mobs.

Players may have, although IMX it was about 50/50 in terms of actually doing otherwise, but characters certainly did not.

Why was the wizard the guy who could read the arcane runes? And what if the runes were simply in another language? Why couldn't the cleric comprehend the sorcerer (who would also have been either a cleric or a wizard 'back in the day,' of course).

If anyone was equipped to do the things you're describing in a pre-skill D&D, it was the rogue (or thief, anyway), who had the ability to do oddball things like use magical devices and cast spells from scrolls without having actual magical abilities. The wizard had to actually cast read magic to do what the thief could do with a check. Meaning, incidentally, that the wizard who expended his spell couldn't read the runes, anyway.

Of course, nothing was actually stopping a fighter or ranger from reading the runes, except either GM fiat or module writer fiat - both of which were inconsistently applied on such matters, meaning half the time a player could describe his fighter as being educated and half the time not.

As for resource management - sorry, but I've played a lot of games, RPG and otherwise, and D&D's limited and arbitrary resource management system is one of the shallower ones out there. In terms of exhilarating Gamist difficulty level, virtually any wargame ever designed provides a more satisfying resource management challenge.

D&D is still about resource management (as is SWSE, which is almost purely encounter-based), but its primary resource is the action and the mechanism for exploiting it is positioning and action choice. 4e is unlikely to change these elements (including if it goes more toward World of Warcraft, which from every account I've heard is also an intensely challenging tactical game based on teamwork, positioning and timing).

 

[Moggthegob]

I dunno I just I never did like WoW and I dont like SWSE and I Hated Bo9S so I feel as though 4e will not be the game for me. I just think its to ooverpowered I mean the tactics are there but so are the letsj sut level our selveso ut of trouble solutions and the thingI like about dnd is tht grinding is non-existant. Also, I fee lthe burden of reosurce management is what makes the wizard balances. If the burden of that is taken aay theres no reason not to play a party of 4 wizards with a bunch hirelings ot suck up the abuse for you.