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

[Corinth]

I thought they were space aliens. They live in a frikking space ship.

Here, read for yourself.

 

[Corinth]

There have been so many things mislabeled as WoW-appropriations since 4.0's announcement, that it's quite credible to deny the accusations.

WoW has clearly had an influence on 4e. I just don't like seeing people making false assertions to blame anything they don't like in 4e on WoW, or as proof that WotC is "turning D&D into WoW". Much of what appears in the original post is accurate(though alot of it comes from video games that predate WoW, but that isn't entirely relevant). Saying "roles" are a WoWism though is extremely inaccurate, and I've grown really tired of seeing it treated as fact.

Specific implementations of many of the appropriations are WOW-derived, and this makes them WOW-appropriations, so the accusations cannot be denied credibly.

 

[FourthBear]

There have been so many WOW-appropriations revealed since 4.0's announcement that it's not credible to deny the accusation anymore.

I think the thing that's silliest is that it often is pronounced like an accusation. With no real arguments about whether the ideas are good or bad, but rather that simply being associated with WoW has horrible, negative implications. This is beyond the fact that many of these supposed appropriations are either non-specific to WoW (or indeed MMORPGs) or even appeared in D&D in previous editions. Frankly, I'd rather the whole discussion centered on whether they are good ideas or not, not whether they originate from a forbidden source.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I see you are one of the many people that believes that articles like this one(from the 2e era Dragon Magazine) http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/dungeoncraft/dungeon_craft_01.html and others like it do not exist. Here's the relevant quote:



So, what we have is a Pre-WoW article that indicates:
1. Each character class has a role(the writer even calls them roles).
2. If the roles are not filled, the group will have a hard time.
3. AD&D products were built assuming those roles would be filled.

Class roles, as a concept, have always existed. Every group I ever played with in the 2e days acknowledged them. They are something WoW took from D&D, not the other way around. Wizards is modifying them somewhat, but they look similar to what they always were. Defenders clearly existed("protect the weaker adventurers"). The leader role has been expanded(from "to cast healing spells" to "to cast healing and buff spells"). The controller role has been more clearly defined(from "provide an extra punch in tough battles" to "control the battlefield, primarily through area effects"). Strikers are the only "new" role, as this type of character really wasn't given much for combat utility back in the day(though they clearly based the role off of the thief's backstab ability).

Yes, roles exisited, but naming them with arbitrary names such as "defender" "striker" "controller" or "healer" is like calling a WoW Warrior a "tank" or a WoW Rogue "DPS" or a WoW Priest a "Healer".

You'll notice in that quote you provided, they don't give those roles names. They give them a description. Naming the roles is a WoW or MMO kind of thing (that players invited really)

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, roles exisited, but naming them with arbitrary names such as "defender" "striker" "controller" or "healer" is like calling a WoW Warrior a "tank" or a WoW Rogue "DPS" or a WoW Priest a "Healer".

How are these names "arbitrary"? It seems to me they're intended to be descriptive. They describe what the character class is best at.

It's easier to have a name that sums up a description, rather than using a description each time, if you're going to discuss these things at any length.

Arbitrary role names would be things like "sandwich", "baloon", "flaz-braz" and "pencil crayon".

 

[Grog]

The first attack in each instances is a area-effect breath of fire.

Dragons have had area-effect fire breath since the first days of D&D. This is not a WoWism.

They both have an attack that deals damage to the targets in front. For WoW it is Onyxia's Cleave ability, for 4E it is a claw attack.

Dragons have had claw attacks since the first days of D&D. This is not a WoWism.

They both have a tail attack, the effects of which knock people back.

Not sure on the knockback, but dragons have had tail swipe attacks since at least 2nd edition, which greatly predates WoW. This is not a WoWism.

They both have another fire attack, but this is a ball of fire that targets a single target (something D&D dragons weren't previously able to do).

This is new for 4E dragons, but WoW certainly didn't invent single-target fire attacks.

From the broad sense, you could say, "Dragons always had these abilities" (except for the single target fireball effect). But I think they way they laid it out, the sequence of the attacks, is pretty much spot on when you compare it to the Onxynia encounter.

No, it is absolutely nothing like the Onyxia encounter. And what few similarities there are, are simply things common to almost any fictional battle with a dragon. WoW didn't invent fire breath and claw attacks for dragons, so to claim that 4E stole those from WoW is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Raduin711]

sample dragon fight: I wouldn't say this is borrowed from Onyxia. WoW and D&D are simply trying to capture the classic fantasy trope of the group of heroes fighting the deadly dragon. By giving the dragon all different kinds of actions, he is able to provide a good challenge against a group of PC's. The same idea is being done with the beholder, as well. I would say they are both approaching this trope in different ways.

Quest Cards: I have no idea about these. I assume these are an addition to D&D miniatures and not 4e. If so, I know warhammer 40k has different scenarios as well. Table-top strategy games often make use of scenarios as a way of spicing the game up.

Level Limits on Rings: Not sure. Could be. I would say that WoW is even more gear dependent than 3.5 D&D, and that the level limit isn't on the ring, per se, but on the slot. You could also say that D&D has always had level limits on some magical items, like scrolls, and that magic items have always been indirectly restricted by the amount of gp characters are able to aquire and by DM management.

Tieflings: Again, tieflings have been around long before WoW. D&D has had the concept of "evil curious" characters for a long time, stretching back to about the time Drow were introduced, possibly earlier, I don't know, I wasn't around then. They have just now put the Tiefling in the PHB, that is true. Is this the first time they have put an "evil curious" race in the PHB? Actually... no. They had half-orcs in 3.5. They decided to ditch that because of the implications of how those half-orcs were concieved. But was their choice of Tieflings being the new "evil curious" race because of the popularity of the Dranei, or because Tieflings were the next obvious choice? I don't know for sure. Maybe both. I tend to side with the latter, but that is just my personal opinion.

Roles: D&D has always had implied roles, from the very beginning. Encouraging teamwork has always been a goal of D&D, and with different classes came different roles. They are just labeling these roles this time around. (also, if you look back to 2e, you can see that it had defined roles as well, so actually this isn't new to D&D at all...)

Defender vs Tank: D&D has always had the armored fighter in the front lines to protect the wizard. Only difference is, this time around the defender will have more abilities to keep the enemies focused on him and not the rest of the party.

DPS: D&D used to have a DPS role in the form of the wizard. This time around it sounds like 4e is trying to spread out the damage dealing abilities to the whole party.

Striker: The striker seems to be -kind of- the DPS role. However the Striker will rely on opportunistic tactics and evasive maneuvers, rather than standing back and lobbing damaging spells like in WoW.

Healer vs Leader: An area where 4e seems to be taking the initiative over WoW. Rather than having the healer stand back and spam heals, the Leader helps with that, and much more. But again, this role was done by D&D first.

Controller vs. Crowd Control: This is one area where D&D may be borrowing from WoW. The controller function seems to be somewhat new to D&D. While the wizard has always had abilities to affect the battlefield, their main function was to dish out the damage where it was needed.

But I think all in all, D&D has been doing combat roles since its inception, which predates video games in general. If anything WoW is borrowing from concepts laid out by D&D long ago.

Elites: Again, there have always been big bad monsters in D&D that were supposed to be thrown at a party by themselves and still be a challenge. This time around they are doing it better.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, roles exisited, but naming them with arbitrary names such as "defender" "striker" "controller" or "healer" is like calling a WoW Warrior a "tank" or a WoW Rogue "DPS" or a WoW Priest a "Healer".

You'll notice in that quote you provided, they don't give those roles names. They give them a description. Naming the roles is a WoW or MMO kind of thing (that players invited really)

That word, "arbitrary", I do not think it means what you think it means.

And if you think calling a role "healer" started with WOW, you're mistaken. People have been describing a particular role in their party as the party healer for a very long time.

 

[Zarithar]

That word, "arbitrary", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

 

[Mistwell]

Level Limits on Rings: Not sure. Could be. I would say that WoW is even more gear dependent than 3.5 D&D, and that the level limit isn't on the ring, per se, but on the slot. You could also say that D&D has always had level limits on some magical items, like scrolls, and that magic items have always been indirectly restricted by the amount of gp characters are able to aquire and by DM management.

3.5 had level limits on relics. It had de facto level limits on staves as well. All they did was go further when an existing concept of level limits on items, and I doubt it was inspired by anything other than their task of taking apart 3.5 and putting the concepts they discovered back together.

Tieflings: Again, tieflings have been around long before WoW. D&D has had the concept of "evil curious" characters for a long time, stretching back to about the time Drow were introduced, possibly earlier, I don't know, I wasn't around then. They have just now put the Tiefling in the PHB, that is true. Is this the first time they have put an "evil curious" race in the PHB? Actually... no. They had half-orcs in 3.5. They decided to ditch that because of the implications of how those half-orcs were concieved. But was their choice of Tieflings being the new "evil curious" race because of the popularity of the Dranei, or because Tieflings were the next obvious choice? I don't know for sure. Maybe both. I tend to side with the latter, but that is just my personal opinion.

Agreed. Tieflings as a player race in the core book is hardly a stretch from the existing rules, and doesn't seem to bear any real resemblance to WOW unless you want to force that square cube in to the round hole.

Elites: Again, there have always been big bad monsters in D&D that were supposed to be thrown at a party by themselves and still be a challenge. This time around they are doing it better.

Indeed, we've been calling them the BBG for a long, long time before WOW.

Like I was saying earlier, most of this seems to be a big stretch to try and justify a pre conceived notion some folks have. The evidence doesn't merit the conclusion, but the conclusion was done and then people went to find evidence to back it up, which is the opposite method you want to use if you actually want an objective conclusion.