What's this so-called MMO influence????

[Imban]

And the rings thing? I find it amusing how, previous to 4E, there was some desire to give rings back the "legendary" status they previously enjoyed, rather than being interchangable with wondrous items. Now, of course, it's a terrible MMO idea.

That would be the first time I have ever heard of this - rings have always seemed generally interchangable with wondrous items to me for as long as I've played D&D and RPGs derived from it, and I haven't heard of any previous "legendary" status (in the RPG world, as opposed to in fiction - Lord of the Rings, certainly, but...) nor any widespread movement to make rings have some sort of status other than interchangable with wondrous items. Likewise, my objection is more that it's completely incompatible with what I want out of D&D than any comparison to other media.

I'm honestly wondering what the new concept for rings is in 4th Edition, and depending on what will almost certainly enter a houserule into games of it that I run - it's more a matter of which one than whether or not I will at this point.

If 4e rings have a unique set of powers where it makes sense that they are not available at levels 1-10, then I'd be likely to say that everyone gets two Ring slots from level 1 that are as previous editions' "interchangable with wondrous items" rings, and at level 11 one upgrades to a Greater Ring slot and at level 21 both do.

If 4e rings are interchangable with wondrous items as printed, then everyone gets two Ring slots from level 1 and my opinion of 4e's design falls slightly.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think "WoW influence" has been a popular criticism of 4e for a bunch of reasons. Some of them are rhetorical (WoW is the Britney Spears of games ATM, so popular that all the "cool kids" hate it), but others have at least some basis in real factors of 4e.

The first, and most common on ENWorld, is based on game mechanics. WoW is (IMO) basically filling the same rhetorical role here that Diablo did when 3e came out: it is the current paragon of "bad gamist" design, where the entire system is centered around making combat "simple and fun" to the point that storytelling and other considerations are sacrificed.

In evaluating this argument, I think it's less helpful to banter about where the term "tank" originated than it is to step back a little and evaluate the big question. Did it turn out to be a bad thing that 3e "stole" concepts like feats and skill from Diablo? I'd certainly argue that in hindsight, those systems were a big step forward, and actually ENABLED a lot more intricate roleplaying and character development.

I'm betting a lot of the "WoW-gamist" elements of 4e will prove the same. "Elite monsters" is a prime example: this allows 4e fights to be a lot more interesting, since the DM can "mix it up" by having one encounter with a dozen goblin minions, and then a solo encounter with a dragon.

The second argument is the aesthetic one. We've already seen pictures in this thread of Draenei. To me, the specific connection between a couple given races is less compelling than the overall aesthetic similarities between the 4e art style and WoW's style. This is probably another way of stating the "4e looks anime" criticism, which is another flamebait topic on these boards, but I think it is worth looking at.

I think it's pretty undeniable that "anime/manga" style has influenced 3e and 4e art, just as it has heavily influenced American comics and cartoons. The new female dwarves are a good example: they made them attractive by making the eyes extra-large, which is a decidedly "manga" aesthetic. But personally, if I had to choose between the 3e/4e art style and the 2e "classic cartoon" style, I'd go with the new stuff any day. This is pretty much entirely a matter of personal preference, though.

Overall, I'm not sure why some people are so incensed that D&D might be taking a little inspiration from other popular elements of its genre.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Trying to answer the OP, here...

What it all comes down to is that 4E is a new edition. It's a brand new game (note it's called "4E", not "3.75E") and thus is incompatible with the rules material from 3E books. Some of the rules changes are, well, changes from 3E. These facts may be obvious, but nevertheless it's just normal for some people to get angry about a new edition, and express their anger on message boards.

We saw the exact same thing, right here on ENWorld (then called "Eric Noah's Third Edition News"), when 3E was announced. While many people were excited, a vocal minority complained that all their 2E material was "wasted", that 3E was too videogamey (most cited Diablo as the main culprit), that it was "too different" from 2E (again, the game was called "3E", not "2.5E", but whatever), and so on. These were and are valid complaints, from a personal standpoint--they are opinions made by consumers, and consumers of course can choose to like or dislike a product. They have proven not to be valid complaints from a business decision or "long-term health of the game" standpoint: 3E was a fabulous success by any measure.

So we're simply seeing the exact same phenomenon with 4E.

As to the specific complaints (and this is more of a reply to other posters, not the OP): so what if D&D 4E has incorporated some of the elements that make MMOs a success? WoW raked in over ONE BILLION DOLLARS last year. That's not hyperbole; that's a figure from a financial statement. $1,200,000,000.00. Yeah, it turns out people--a lot of people--enjoy MMO elements. Obviously given the opportunity to make a new game (and after 8 years, it's definitely the right time), a responsible company will try to make a game that will appeal to the largest number of people. It will try to incorporate game elements that have been proven to be fun & desirable. In other words it will try to make a state-of-the-art game with the greatest chance to successfully appeal to the greatest number of people.

Back to the OP: the odd thing is, 4E in no way hurts existing 3E product. I don't understand the tone of some of the 4E haters; it's very personal, like WotC's choices are somehow personal attacks. They feel wronged by WotC; we've seen words like "betrayed" and even "raped". I just don't get it. If a person doesn't like 4E, okay, fine. Don't play it. Just keep playing that oft-referred-to pile of 3E material. What's the big deal?

 

[Sigdel]

Okay, I got to chime in on this one. The whole tiefling/draenei thing is a bit off. I love the WarCraft universe, but hate WoW. Heres one of the reasons: The Draenei looked a lot different in WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne. Here is a link. They changed the looks of the race to look more tiefling like. They changed the story as well. Hmmm... Who imitated who?

But if you want to end all debate here is a simple formula:

WoW = D&D 4e.

Matrix Online = D20 Modern

Star Wars Galaxies < Star Wars SE

Now, shuddap and eat yer puddin!
(just kidding Mods

 

[Raduin711]

On the topic of roles, while MMO's have roles for various classes/builds, and 4e is openly stating that role, D&D has always had roles for various classes.

Let me repeat that: D&D has always had roles. Even back when Elves were a class.

The only difference is, this time they are openly stating those roles. They even (kinda) did this in 2nd edition, when they separated the classes into warrior/priest/mage/rogue.

Also, in WoW, changing your "spec" (closest analogy to D&D is feats) can drastically change the way in which your character plays. A druid who specs feral is a tank/DPS, and a druid who specs restoration is healing.

In 4e, they have said that a Fighter is able to be a defender no matter what feats he takes. he gets "Defending" for free. he can take feats that let him do other things, and it won't impact his ability to defend, unlike the above druid who changes roles depending on what spec he takes.

 

[Dausuul]

Exactly. Striker, dps, he who hits things with sticks, the exact wording doesn't matter, it's the actual labeling that I'm talking about. Wether it's good or bad is up to the individual to decide, but denying the WoW (or MMORPG in general) influence is denying the nose in front of your face.

Hey, I have another set of names for those four roles:

Fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief.

These concepts have been around since long before MMOs, and possibly since before the Internet. They certainly did not come from WoW, though I don't doubt WoW has appropriated them and put them to good use.

That said--yes, WoW and its ilk have influenced the development of 4E. The designers have said as much. Many of them are avid WoW players, and they're not shy about lifting a good mechanic when they see one. But that doesn't mean 4E is "becoming" World of Warcraft. English assimilated a whole slew of French words back in 1066, but that didn't cause English to become French.

 

[Corinth]

The problem is that D&D 4.0 attempts to compete with World of Warcraft not by attacking the latter game's weak points, but by attacking its strengths.

• Abilities that are available at-will, or have a one-encounter/one-day cooldown, mirror the way that World of Warcraft has most class abilities either on short cooldowns (which, if translated from real-time to tabletop play, are effectively at-will) or on long cooldowns (which, likewise, translate to per-encounter or per-day) and are focused upon practical use in a tactical combat or adventuring situation. (Abilities that are, for all intents and purposes, intended for use during downtime are minimized.)
• The skill list, likewise, is reduced to those that have an immediate application in the adventuring context while those used more or less during downtime are removed and instead rolled into general attribute checks.
• The classes are designed to fill necessary roles in an adventuring party and have no need for justification outside of this concern, regardless of whatever label gets tied to them. Defenders are tanks, Strikers are either ranged or melee damage-per-second specialists, Controllers are crowd control specialists, and Leaders are healers; this is a better-communicated version of the Tank-Healer-DPS Trinity of World of Warcraft in that crowd control isn't necessarily recognized as a separate specialty, but instead is acknowledged as part of the DPS role.
• The adventure design paradigm is one of a series of encounters, often linear in their design, that build up towards a master villain--the boss--and each encounter has one hostile NPC per PC in the group as a baseline. Elite NPCs count as two normal NPCs (much akin in concept, but different in execution, to how Elites work in World of Warcraft). These encounters are physical in nature, commonly done as combat, and the exceptions are quick-and-dirty interactions either with plot-device NPCs that aren't to be killed (for whatever reason) or with untouchable NPCs that may or may not persist across adventures.
• For all intents and purposes, a game setting consists only of Adventure Sites (the World of Warcraft equivalent, usually, is a dungeon instance), friendly towns (to do downtime maintenance and upkeep) and the occassional random encounter. (This feels more like Guild Wars or Dungeon Runners than World of Warcraft, but still an MMO influence.)
• NPCs have set XP awards. Loot has level requirements, both to craft and to use.
• PCs, by default, have no meaningful influence upon their surroundings. They are passive participants in their society and its concerns, as their actions have no impact outside of what's scripted for them.

All of this points to 4.0 being a great basis for translation to a console, PC or MMORPG, but it makes for a horrible tabletop RPG because electronic RPGs of all sorts are superior media for all such games. Those media are better capable of executing games of this sort due to technological benefits that makes it possible to handle all of the details involved in playing this sort of game a very easy thing to do- and thus take all of that load off of both the players and the GM.

What tabletop RPGs do better than electronic RPGs, or board games for that matter, is not merely simulation of a fictional world. (Computers do that better also.) Neither is it addressing themes through narrative conventions. (Books, comics, film, radio and television are all far superior media for such purposes.) What tabletop RPGs do that no other popular media allows is the immersion of an individual into a secondary world for the sole purpose of living out a secondary, parallel, life in a position and perspective other than our own--and in a historical specificity and continuity other than our own--and thereby allow us to experience--to live through--things that otherwise are impossible to know, be it the experience of living through the tragedy of Troy or the experience of living as a merchant mariner on a free trader far into the future, or something else entirely, for the expressed purpose of developing the minds of the participants through such play. This is what D&D's design--what all tabletop RPG design--should focus upon, facilitate and encourage.

(Note: The only other medium that can accomplish this is Classical Theater, as Friedrich Schiller notes in his "Theater as a Moral Institution".)

 

[RithTheAwakener]

The Draenei looked a lot different in WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne. Here is a link. They changed the looks of the race to look more tiefling like. They changed the story as well. Hmmm... Who imitated who?

Side note: Aren't those the corrupted draenei, the ones that the orcs cursed to be like that? I thought the WoW Draenei were refugees from that event.

 

[Benimoto]

What tabletop RPGs do better than electronic RPGs, or board games for that matter, is not merely simulation of a fictional world. (Computers do that better also.) Neither is it addressing themes through narrative conventions. (Books, comics, film, radio and television are all far superior media for such purposes.) What tabletop RPGs do that no other popular media allows is the immersion of an individual into a secondary world for the sole purpose of living out a secondary, parallel, life in a position and perspective other than our own--and in a historical specificity and continuity other than our own--and thereby allow us to experience--to live through--things that otherwise are impossible to know, be it the experience of living through the tragedy of Troy or the experience of living as a merchant mariner on a free trader far into the future, or something else entirely, for the expressed purpose of developing the minds of the participants through such play. This is what D&D's design--what all tabletop RPG design--should focus upon, facilitate and encourage.

That's a good post and well thought out, but really I don't agree with most of it. Both WoW and D&D are adventure games, so of course there's similarities. D&D 4th edition seems to be paring back parts of its system that don't deal with adventure, but I can't agree that that's to compete with WoW better, or even that it's to make it a better translation to a console or MMO game. I can say that from a computer programming point of view, in my opinion, most of the 4th edition changes I've heard of make the game no easier to translate into a computer game, and may even make it harder.

Furthermore, I don't believe that WoW's main strength is that it is an adventure game. If that were true, most players would play through each quest or dungeon in the game once or twice and then go play a different game, once the novelty had worn off. Instead, in my opinion, WoW's main long-term strength is the lottery-like lure of its loot system.

But that's kind of veering off topic. Personally, I see most of the changes in D&D as being the result of modern trends in game design or as addressing identified problems with 3rd edition.

 

[Remathilis]

Abilities that are available at-will, or have a one-encounter/one-day cooldown, mirror the way that World of Warcraft has most class abilities either on short cooldowns (which, if translated from real-time to tabletop play, are effectively at-will) or on long cooldowns (which, likewise, translate to per-encounter or per-day) and are focused upon practical use in a tactical combat or adventuring situation. (Abilities that are, for all intents and purposes, intended for use during downtime are minimized.)

D&D has always had abilities that were at will (backstab, detect evil, turn undead), limited but with enough uses it was practically per encounter (3e wildshape, 3e turn undead, barbarian rage, smite evil) and abilities that were 1/day (most spells). These abilites had either no cool down (turn undead), short cool downs (winded after a rage) or long cool downs (rest 8 hours to recover spells).

The skill list, likewise, is reduced to those that have an immediate application in the adventuring context while those used more or less during downtime are removed and instead rolled into general attribute checks.

What skills does that remove? Craft, Profession, a couple of knowledges, and Perform. In 2e, when you had nothing better to spend NWP's on, it made sense to be a tailor, cobbler, or fire-builder, but I can honestly say even in those days, I rarely saw those skills do anything other than fill up character sheet space. I spend my time playing D&D traveling through adventures, not making cobbling checks...

The classes are designed to fill necessary roles in an adventuring party and have no need for justification outside of this concern, regardless of whatever label gets tied to them. Defenders are tanks, Strikers are either ranged or melee damage-per-second specialists, Controllers are crowd control specialists, and Leaders are healers; this is a better-communicated version of the Tank-Healer-DPS Trinity of World of Warcraft in that crowd control isn't necessarily recognized as a separate specialty, but instead is acknowledged as part of the DPS role.

Wizards have always had fireball, rogues have had sneak attack/backstab (though the latter WAS useless), clerics have had cure wounds spells, and fighters wore plate and had good attack bonuses. Most of the ranger's I've ever seen were archers or dual-wielders (mind you, I started in 2e), and we were calling our half-ogre fighter the "tank" since 2000 (literally, his name was Tank, since his ogre-name was nigh unpronounceable).

Though you are correct, there is a shift in some classes from "outside of combat " to "inside of combat" (rogue is the prime example) I think its something long overdue.

The adventure design paradigm is one of a series of encounters, often linear in their design, that build up towards a master villain--the boss--and each encounter has one hostile NPC per PC in the group as a baseline. Elite NPCs count as two normal NPCs (much akin in concept, but different in execution, to how Elites work in World of Warcraft). These encounters are physical in nature, commonly done as combat, and the exceptions are quick-and-dirty interactions either with plot-device NPCs that aren't to be killed (for whatever reason) or with untouchable NPCs that may or may not persist across adventures.

You ever play a module? I highly recommend any Goodman Game's DCC, the Forge of Fury, Return to Temple of Elemental Evil or Sunless Citadel by WotC. Feeling Old-School? I like the Against the Giant's module trek myself. Oh course the Dragonlance module series is also a pretty good trek...

For all intents and purposes, a game setting consists only of Adventure Sites (the World of Warcraft equivalent, usually, is a dungeon instance), friendly towns (to do downtime maintenance and upkeep) and the occasional random encounter. (This feels more like Guild Wars or Dungeon Runners than World of Warcraft, but still an MMO influence.)

And what else is D&D supposed to have? You have hostile settings (dungeons), relatively safe settings (towns) and the wilderness in between them. (random encounters). This is as old as Keep on the Borderlands, and is a formula rarely broken because it works.

NPCs have set XP awards. Loot has level requirements, both to craft and to use.

Not sure what you mean by the first: every character in the game (be it NPC, monster, or PC) has a determined XP value determined by his HD (1st & 2nd) or CR (3rd). Unless you mean story awards, which were nothing more than guidelines (DMG 2e) or an ad-hoc award (25 per PC level, 3e) which the DM can apply at his leisure.

As for loot: well, there has ALWAYS been a level requirement to craft (9th for scrolls, 12th for others in 2e, minimum level requirements for item creation feats in 3e) and there has been gear that doesn't function for lower-level PCs in other editions (Instruments of the Bards, for example). While limiting rings (an entire category) is new, a 1st level 4e PC can pick up and use a vopral sword the same way his 1e, 2e, and 3e ancestors can (though how he got is is another topic)

PCs, by default, have no meaningful influence upon their surroundings. They are passive participants in their society and its concerns, as their actions have no impact outside of what's scripted for them.

What D&D game are you playing in? Seriously?

My campaign world is CONSTANTLY influenced by the PCs actions. Bad-guys don't respawn. Loot doesn't return to treasure chests. The king doesn't ask the same quest over and over again, and you can't stand in the middle of the forest all night hunting an endless supply of orcs. I'm fairly certain fourth edition will not be forcing ANY of those things upon my game.

All of this points to 4.0 being a great basis for translation to a console, PC or MMORPG, but it makes for a horrible tabletop RPG because electronic RPGs of all sorts are superior media for all such games. Those media are better capable of executing games of this sort due to technological benefits that makes it possible to handle all of the details involved in playing this sort of game a very easy thing to do- and thus take all of that load off of both the players and the GM.

NPC: You cannot go into the King's Hall.
PC: But I have important news to tell him about...
NPC: You cannot go into the King's Hall.
PC: There are orcs coming from the Nor...
NPC: You cannot go into the King's Hall.
PC: You can't say anything more than that, can you?
NPC: You cannot go into the King's Hall.

Sorry, but no currently consumer-level computer can create the elaborate scripts that account for every possible outcome a PC's actions can have.

What tabletop RPGs do better than electronic RPGs, or board games for that matter, is not merely simulation of a fictional world. (Computers do that better also.) Neither is it addressing themes through narrative conventions. (Books, comics, film, radio and television are all far superior media for such purposes.) What tabletop RPGs do that no other popular media allows is the immersion of an individual into a secondary world for the sole purpose of living out a secondary, parallel, life in a position and perspective other than our own--and in a historical specificity and continuity other than our own--and thereby allow us to experience--to live through--things that otherwise are impossible to know, be it the experience of living through the tragedy of Troy or the experience of living as a merchant mariner on a free trader far into the future, or something else entirely, for the expressed purpose of developing the minds of the participants through such play. This is what D&D's design--what all tabletop RPG design--should focus upon, facilitate and encourage.

Um... No. D&D should allow from ALL manner of play, from immersing storytelling of epics, exploration of fictional worlds that only exist as a collaboration between player and referee, or as a fun romp through a piece of graph paper covered in plastic toys and resolved with candy-colored polyhedrals. To assume that only one manner of play: immersion, is correct is to declare many other types of valid play "badwrongfun" and strikes of elitism. While D&D DOES have the advantage over WoW in immersion play (due to its non-static nature and abiltiy for a referee to adapt it) it is not the only, or correct, way to play.