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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's so weird to realize that, as far as most people go, WoW is the first MMORPG.

 

[Hjorimir]

One could argue that tieflings were core in 3E as they were in the Monster Manual, which is part of the three core books. I think they simply recognized their popularity and elevated there exposure by placing them in the PHB, which I’m totally fine with.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yeah, I realize that. But that is why I am not reserving my list to just 4E mechanics alone. I am trying to compare the resemblances to all factors. I doubt in the PHB that it will say "Tieflings speak with a Romanian accent", but that's not the point. The fact that the accent seems to be influenced from the Draenai is more to the point, even if it was just in gest.

My point was, the accent in the video could have been selected specifically to make fun of the WoW accent, or to poke fun at the internetters shouting "4E is WOW OMG!!!!!!"

It suggested satire to me, not influence.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

[*]In the Gnome & Tiefling interview, the Tiefling ("demon" race) has a sort of Romanian (think Bela Lugosi version of Dracula) accent - The demon race for WoW, the Draenei, have a very similiar accent.

I won't duplicate the debunking of many of these but I do want to add something to this one...

I don't play WoW so I know nothing of the Draenei. I saw the take on the character as humerous and the Russian style accent going into the "Kewl Player with a Kewl PC that had a Kewl accent" stereotype. I got no WoWism from it.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It's so weird to realize that, as far as most people go, WoW is the first MMORPG.

No love for Lord British's Ultima Online, eh?

Cheers, LT.

 

[RigaMortus2]

1. Are you complaining that they haven't answered a question they haven't been asked?

Well first off, I am not complaining about anything. No complaints here whatsoever. And second, how do you know they haven't been asked this question? (what question are we referring to anyway?). Just because it hasn't been posted on a blog or message board doesn't mean it hasn't been asked (like via email for example).

2. Didn't Mearls have a blog post or somesuch where he discussed borrowing ideas from other media (ie, we didn't refuse to consider something just because it came from a MMOG)?

You may be right about this. It sounds familiar now that you bring it up. But I do have to shake my head at other people (ie D&D fans) who are unwilling to accept this. Heh.

 

[Counterspin]

People deny that WOW has influenced 4e because they're sick to death of comparisons like this. I don't understand why even neutral parties want to discuss something that, as far as I can tell, will have zero impact on my or anyone else's 4e experience. Unfortunately, those brave souls who are willing to tell bald faced lies to stop contentless discussions like this have failed.

I shed a tear in their honor.

 

[DonTadow]

I think these types of threads would go better if people said things that d and d got from MMOs not necessarily Wow. Wow is a johnny come lately. It just got here a few years ago. MMOS have been doing what wow did for 10 years prior to it's arrival and then muds did them before that. Then there's the ton of things that just came from role playing games that weren't massive multipplayer.

I do agree though that wotc's marketing is to lure in MMO users by making things easier. Oddly enough, in one thread I read someone saying they were aiming at 13 and 14 year olds. I don't think so. i think they are aiming at the new mmo player in their late 20s to 30s who requests simpler things.

The list can be traced back to dozens of games. I guess i would even recant what I said up above and say that it would be better to say that WOTC is taking elements from modern computer role playing games in general.

The question is is this a problem. I don't know. Some things I like some things I don't like. I don't like thequest card thing, because in my games i'd prefer my players to take notes if they think something important is going down, it reeks of the kind of linear adventures I'm not a fan of in computer games. However, I don't mind a more versatile dragon battle like the one described.

Level limits on players is not a bad thing, DMs already do that now in they're head and through treasure charts, else we'd have a lot of +5 vorpal swords running around. However, I don't like non traditional races as it is difficult to define a world with two sets of creatures from completely different planes.

Computer games can't be that bad, we all either have them or have played with them. The thing is do these elements detract from the tabletop d and d experience.

 

[outsider]

[*]4E classes are now sub-divided into character roles (Defender, Controller, Healer, Striker) - WoW has similiar roles (Tank, Crowd Control, Healer, DPS aka damge-per-second)

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:

Think of the ideal AD&D adventuring party-you need at least a couple of fighters to engage monsters and protect the weaker adventurers in combat, a cleric to cast healing spells, a thief to deal with tricks and traps, and a wizard or two to decipher magical clues and provide an extra punch in important battles. If any of these key roles aren't filled, the players are bound to run into trouble; many AD&D supplements were designed under the assumption that all these skills would be available to the players' party.

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).

 

[RigaMortus2]

I won't duplicate the debunking of many of these but I do want to add something to this one...

I don't play WoW so I know nothing of the Draenei. I saw the take on the character as humerous and the Russian style accent going into the "Kewl Player with a Kewl PC that had a Kewl accent" stereotype. I got no WoWism from it.

If you don't play WoW, then you wouldn't get it. The Draenei in WoW are a new playable race of "demons" and their voice in the game is basically like The Count from Sesame Street (ie Romanian accent).

So not only do you have a playable "demon" race in both WoW and D&D, but they also have similiar accents??? You don't find that the least bit coincidental?

Note: Before anyone mentions, yeah I realize Tieflings are in 3E so when I refer to them as being a playable race in 4E I am referring to the fact they are now Core and playable right from the get go w/o any level adjustment or DM fiat...