D&D 4E My compiled list of 4E's WoWisms

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It is kinda sorta vaguely like a WoW paladin judging Seal of Light on something.

Seal of Light would be a zillion times more awesome if it worked this way and functioned like a shadow priest's ability to heal/give mana back to the whole group by blasting away at a target.

But hey, I'm just a ranger, er, hunter.

 

[outsider]

A Fighter is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

That is a class, and a description of that class or it's role. Versus...

A Tank is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

Why not just rename the Fighter class Tank? What is the purpose to giving a name to the role when they already have a name for it... their class name!?

Because of this:

A Fighter is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

A Paladin is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

A Swordmage is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

The role names are there to group classes according to their function, now that there'll be multiple classes able to perform each function. It's better to acknowledge that the classes are basically trying to do the same thing, despite the fact that they are using quite different means to accomplish it.

 

[kennew142]

Disclaimer: If the "feature" above appears in WoW, then I consider it a WoWism. That does NOT mean that other media does not have it or that they didn't have it first. It does NOT mean that the "feature" doesn't predate WoW, it very well could.

To be clear: WoWism = feature that appears in WoW, regardless if it appeared/appears elsewhere as well.

It just seems kind of a weak argument to call something a WoWism is it appears in WoW, even if it came from D&D first (like most of your examples).

However, I will add a few more WoWisms in D&D 4e:

1) There are character classes.
2) Characters have levels.
3) Characters have hit points.
4) When attacking, a character uses a random factor to determine how much damage they do.
5) Some characters can use magic.
6) There are creatures called monsters in the game that do not exist in the real world.
7) The characters are defined by a set of numerical abilities.
8) ad nauseam

 

[rjdafoe]

I find there to be a couple differences here...

First off, I think there is a difference when a PLAYER calls something a "tank" or a "meat shield" and when a game designer uses a similiar term for a role.
Second, it is fine to describe a classes role, but I personally find it strange to give the role a different name than the class performing the role.

Ex:

A Fighter is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

That is a class, and a description of that class or it's role. Versus...

A Tank is a hearty warrior. Their role is to attract the attention of the enemies, to come between their blows, to take damage and deal damage.

Why not just rename the Fighter class Tank? What is the purpose to giving a name to the role when they already have a name for it... their class name!?

Some of these role names are descriptive enough. Healer, is right to the point. No mistaking that one. Defender. What does that tell you really? Why can't a Wizard or Rogue defend a person? Striker. What is that? Someone that hits someone else? Don't all classes hit their enemies? Why can't my Paladin strike an opponent? I won't go into Leader

Why give a name for a role and then describe that role vs. just describing the role each class has?

The term Tank, DPS, Healer, CC are all player created terms and you'd have to be 'in the know' to know what they mean. I see players all the time asking in WoW what DPS means or what a DPS class is. And these are no different than Striker, Defender, Leader, etc.

What you are forgetting here is that they are nothing but words that describe what the classes do. I think the only reason they use these words in D&D is that people already know what they mean. They do not have to describe what they mean. They have been around (in my experience and I am sure longer) since EQ1. Since alot of these people are the same target audience, it only makes sense to describe some of the items the same way, becuase that is how people see the game in todays world. These have always existed in D&D. The only thing that is a "WoWism" is the actual word.

They are just words. It is expected to be described this way, even if they are not the same words.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Since MMOs are real time, they aren't broken up into rounds like PnP RPGs are, they are instead delayed by how many attacks you can make in a second.

if they are point and click they are not real time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

if they are point and click they are not real time.

Not to mention every MMORPG I've ever come across has a de facto round -- normally called a "tick" -- to try and prevent connection speed from being the most important factor in success or failure.

In EQ1, as I recall, it was six seconds, and in WoW, it's something like 1.2 seconds. Still faster than most editions of D&D, but hardly real time.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

exactly. I'm more of a extreems kindof gamer.

I like turned based (including p&p games and games like final fantasy), and i like full action games like soul caliber or zelda, or prince of persia were you move around with joystick of sorts and hit a button to slash, and if you miss you miss, or if the attack is blocked, its becuse the figure your attacking performed an animation of a block before it was blocked.

I hate point and click click rpgs with a passion if they are not turn based. They are so muddy when it comes to actions vs stratagy etc... I love point and *lick* adventures though.

*see space quest 4... mmm wild berry.

 

[PeterWeller]

I know Horde players like to say the Horde are good guys, but it's hard to figure out who they're talking about, honestly.

I'm not saying the Horde are good guys, but the Alliance isn't golden either.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not saying the Horde are good guys, but the Alliance isn't golden either.

Well, night elves are scum. Just playing through Warcraft III makes that clear.

Gnomes are mostly a danger to themselves.

There are certainly bad apple humans -- Thrall's slavery is a good example of that.

Non-Alliance dwarves are also not good, although I don't know that Ironforge is to blame for the Dark Irons any more than Thunder Bluff is responsible for the Grimtotem.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It just seems kind of a weak argument to call something a WoWism is it appears in WoW, even if it came from D&D first (like most of your examples).

However, I will add a few more WoWisms in D&D 4e:

1) There are character classes.
2) Characters have levels.
3) Characters have hit points.
4) When attacking, a character uses a random factor to determine how much damage they do.
5) Some characters can use magic.
6) There are creatures called monsters in the game that do not exist in the real world.
7) The characters are defined by a set of numerical abilities.
8) ad nauseam

Actually, to go by that standard, and I agree that is functionally the standard being used in this argument, I think you have to start even more broadly:
1.) There is fantasy in both DnD and WoW
2.) There is magic.
3.) Casters use magic, other people use items.
4.) There are elves - of many types
5.) There are dwarves
etc, etc, etcetera


The real credible counter-arguments here are:

1.) Why does it matter?

2.) In order for any similarity to be significant you'd have to prove that WoW has something, anything, in it that could be claimed to be original and shared with DnD.

WotC and Blizzard do work in the same territory and they are going to collide since both do pretty syncretic works that merge a lot of tropes and genres together. What makes it worse, though, is that all Blizzard does is refine older ideas. That is explicitly their strength. So anything you see in a Blizzard game is going to be familiar but more excellent from what you see in other genres. When DnD syncretically borrows from the same material it's generally going to come off worse for their wear.

Though DnD has the advantage that it refines, innovates, and then slowly corrupts all other fantasy into its dark image.