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

[Derren]

To be fair, if you want to compare 4E with an MMO, then do it with Everquest 2.

EQ2 has dragon/lizard (even two) and demonic (well, tainted fae) playable races.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

One I find interesting is the evolution of the rogue.

From my recollection (and the post earlier in the thread) the ADnD rogue was the guy who dealt with traps and scouted for the party. From what I recall, backstab did some nice damage, but didn't really tend to come up very often unless the situation was carefully engineered. Extremely situational. That was in our games at least.

Over time, the rogue has evolved into the guy who deals a lot of damage to single targets - generally having to use positioning and sneaky skills. Still maintaining a portfolio of sneaking and other tricks.

IMO it's a change in the archetype over the years. Not a DnDism, WoWism (or EQism/UOism/whatever), but something where they've all fed together to produce the current incarnation?

Think there may be quite a few things like that. Where the changes have bounced between different games changing a little bit each time?


For what it's worth I'm keen for the 4e designers to borrow some of the better bits from MMOs or any other game systems - if there's a good idea out there then it's worth including?

I agree strongly with the post earlier about the number 23 - if you look hard enough for something you will find it everywhere.

 

[The Merciful]

4th edition will be just like WoW because they are gimping druids!

(Blizzard, make ferals viable in the arena and fix the damn feral range bug already!)

 

[RigaMortus2]

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).

Well, what else would you call it? It appears in WoW, it is an 'ism' of WoW, for lack of a better suffix.

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

Yeah, I think I already addressed this type of nonsensical response. Have a good day.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

A tank is a tank is a tank. But that sounds a little toooo 'video gamey' so we'll just call it a Defender for 4E. That pretty much boils down to how I am seeing it.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Now I have to define what I mean by "ism". Perhaps I am using the suffix incorrectly, but I take it to mean a sort of "trademark" or staple of that particular subject. In other words, if it exists within that subject (in this case, WoW) then it is an "ism" of it.

1) Then you should have titled this thread "things that D&D shares with WoW" or something similar instead of the obviously divisive title you actually gave it, given the obvious discussion of the subject on these boards.

2) The aspects that you listed may be elements of WoW, but might not be considered by all to be trademarks or staples of WoW.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, what else would you call it? It appears in WoW, it is an 'ism' of WoW, for lack of a better suffix.

...

Yeah, I think I already addressed this type of nonsensical response. Have a good day.

But the basic stuff like classes etc being brought up flows directly from your definition of a WoWism. You're being completely arbitrary as to what you accept as a WoWism, given your definition. You're not applying the definition evenly. You added a bit that says "and I want to list it as a WoWism".

 

[ThirdWizard]

Check this logic for me:

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).

Well, what else would you call it? It appears in WoW, it is an 'ism' of WoW, for lack of a better suffix.

So it doesn't matter where a WoWism originates. It only matters that it appears in WoW.

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

Yeah, I think I already addressed this type of nonsensical response. Have a good day.

Unless it comes from in D&D. Then it isn't a WoWism even if it appears in WoW.


You seem to be defining a WoWism as something that one associates with WoW because one doesn't know its true origin. That actually seems very consistent with how things from WoW are used around here.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Well, what else would you call it? It appears in WoW, it is an 'ism' of WoW, for lack of a better suffix.

I think this is the main point of contention. There are thing slisted in 4e that I will admit are video game based. But not WoW based.

Talent Trees: These easily can be traced back to Diablo 2. There could easily be something earlier than that but I don't know what it would be off the top of my head. Final Fantasy Tactics has something for it's classes where you have to be certain levels in classes to go to new ones. More of a PrC basis than a Talent Tree Basis though.

Quest Cards: Yes, even our group has been writing stuff down on paper for years. But CRPG quest logs are now so pervasive (and for good reason since they are so handy) that I'll be more than willing to give this one a CRPG basis because I would be willing to bet that while the idea stemmed from helping player remember what they are supposed to do the style of examples the books give will be based off of CRPG logs.

Are these WoWisms?

Not to me. WoW may have them but when I think of Talent Trees I think of Diablo 2 and when I think of Quest Logs I think of CRPGs in general.

What is a WoWism to me? I don't know. It would be something that is WoW and when I think of it I think of WoW first. Since I don't play WoW I can't really think of anything. Honor Points? Raiding? That's what I hear about anyway.

...

Now an extreme example for a serious question.

Are hit points a WoWism to you?

Before any snark... I am seriously asking. According to the quote above it would qualify since WoW uses them. I'm fairly certain you weren't intending to include this extreme (and replies to non-serious posts have made that clear) but I'm trying to find the line in the sand - and as such I am starting at a point where I "know" I am past the line.

What about Mana Points?

Flying Mounts?

Ability Refresh?

Once we can nail down what is a "WoWism" then we can get somewhere. Outside of Warcraft IP (I'm not up to date, I played Warcraft 3 for only a couple of hours) I doubt we'll find any.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Or... you know... what Thirdwizard said.

Beat me to the same idea of questions by a few minutes...