Why is the WoW influence a bad thing?

[irdeggman]

Odd. I thought that PCs always expected treasure. I don't know where you're getting this sudden cropping.

Hell, I thought that was the point of adventuring. Go dungeoncrawling to get loot.

Hong got my point (which is unusual since we rarely agree on things )

When I first started playing (back at the turn of the century when 1st ed came out, I missed OD&D my a few months) the very first games were along the line of killing and looting the bodies. Then came along the "settings".

When I started playing 2nd ed (after a few year break) it was in a "campaign setting". Dark Sun. Standard magic items were rare and it was about accomplishing "missions" and getting what you needed along the way - but not about going out to kill things just to get "loot".

The next "setting" I gamed in was Birthright and it was a "low magic item" setting - that is magic items were "rare". Most players were "regents" and thus gold (at the adventuring level) was pretty much insignificant. The adventuring was to "accomplish great things" and gain "fame" which translated into being a better ruler.

There was also 2 home-brew settings which both focused more on "missions" than merely going out to kill things to find "stuff".

That is what I am referring to adventuring to accomplish something not adventuring to "get stuff". The latter has become more ingrained since the advent of the "drops" from electronic games (which is a necessity for that format - don't get me wrong on that one. It has a place but it is one of those things that are "differences" which should be maintained, IMO).

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is what I am referring to adventuring to accomplish something not adventuring to "get stuff". The latter has become more ingrained since the advent of the "drops" from electronic games (which is a necessity for that format - don't get me wrong on that one. It has a place but it is one of those things that are "differences" which should be maintained, IMO).

That's old school, though. I recall a story on here about a group that killed a beholder, ripped the monster open, and looted scrolls out of it. You'd kill the warlord, then roll random treasure for it, and loot a +2 sword off of him that he never used. PCs got more experience for getting more treasure, so getting the treasure was worth far more than killing any monsters. That's not anything new. Wealth by level guidelines were an example of 3e catching up to how D&D was actually played instead of pretending that it was low magic while really being high magic.

Besides, this is all 3e stuff, from 2000. EQ was what? Two years old at that time? WOW wasn't going to be out for years. If anything MMOs' "drop" mentality is because of D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The latter has become more ingrained since the advent of the "drops" from electronic games (which is a necessity for that format - don't get me wrong on that one. It has a place but it is one of those things that are "differences" which should be maintained, IMO).

From our perspective we can see 2e for the aberration it was. D&D has always been most comfortable as a dungeon crawling, hack n' loot game. Video games are nothing to do with it. The first crpg was developed in the early 70s, they ran in parallel to D&D, having been based off of it. 2e era crpgs weren't so much about the killing and stealing, Planescape: Torment being the outstanding example. The changing zeitgeist all seems to flow from rpgs to crpgs, not the other way around.

 

[hong]

PST is the jewel in the crown of 2E CRPGs, but in terms of actual mainstream impact, the Baldur's Gate line was far bigger. That one had plenty of looting and killing, although it did have a nifty-cool storyline as well (and it completely captured my imagination when it first came out). Icewind Dale was also all about hack-slash, and quite up-front about it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fine, and I should be able to ignore it. If the big bad playground bully challenges me, and I know I'll get my ass kicked, there should be no reason I can't decline his challenge - And then hit him in the back of the head with a Robert Jordon novel.

I wouldn't mind if declining was an option (even after you failed the save), but I would prefer if there was a penalty associated with it (something like being shaken, because you know that guy means i). That's also a good way to use these skills against players - you don't like being charmed by the Succubus? Well, ignore it, but then you will have some penalties...


On Taunts: I remember the Torg (Masterbook) rule system. There were several skills that could be used in combat. Typically, you used some kind of meelee or ranged combat, just like in any other game. But some characters relied on Taunt, Test of Wills, Trick or Maneuver. Using these skills inflicted penalties (Maneuver also inflicted some stun damage, IIRC), like not allowing you to continue rolling after you rolled a 10 or 20, or making you unskilled (losing all skill rank modifiers for a round), or (the highest possible result) a "Player's Call", taking the target out of the fight in whatever way the player cares to describe.

The outcome had nothing to do with "video-gamey" - it was cinematic (best examples might be Indiana Jones and The Mummy, but in fact, it fits for a lot more action-oriented movies.)

- On Monty Haul:
My experience is still that adventures are "mission centered". You get a lot of money out of them, and that's mechanically necessary, but it is "just" a side effect of accomplishing your mission goals
The only real issue I have with this is that characters are dependend on the loot they find. They have to use it or sell it to get better magical gear. And if a campaign calls for something different, many mechanismn of the game do not work any more (you still have death magic, but no way to pay ressourection magic. You have to recalculate Encouner Levels or Challenge Ratings). Honestly, I haven't seen yet what D&D 4 will improve here, as there seem to be contradictory statements - the Christmas Tree effect is supposed to go away, but there will be +6 Wands? I don't see how this can actually work together. But that's probably the general problem - we don't really know enough details...

 

[RigaMortus2]

Primarily, though, it's because - in absolute terms - I do not like the WoW combat mechanics.

I don't think they are copying WoW combat mechanics though. I don't think Fighters will build up Rage as they fight, or Rogues will have a power meter. If anything, they are copying leveling mechanics (special abilities at every level, talent trees, etc.)

The core difference between online games and PnP games isn't defined by the combat mechanics, but by their dynamic storytelling elements. This is something MMORPGs can't currently handle, which is where PnP RPGs still reign supreme.

I would be much more concerned with the removal of storytelling elements and the removal of "suspension of belief" than I would with what game mechanics they may be copying.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If you make your save, sure.

I particularly like the idea of social skills being actively used, and PCs no longer being immune.

Brad

There should BE no save. It should be an individual choice. Otherwise it's called the command spell, or some variation of it. "Fight me!" Is no different than "Eat your vegetables!" in that context. A taunt mechanic takes a great roleplaying scene and reduces it to mathematics.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

There should BE no save. It should be an individual choice. Otherwise it's called the command spell, or some variation of it. "Fight me!" Is no different than "Eat your vegetables!" in that context. A taunt mechanic takes a great roleplaying scene and reduces it to mathematics.

But you could make the same arguement that a hit rolling and damage rolling mechanic reduce a great roleplaying scene(combat CAN be roleplaying) to mathematics.

In fact, you could say that about EVERYTHING in an RPG. Why do we need rules at all?

One big reason is that the characters are not the players. Things like Intimidate, Diplomacy, and so-called taunt mechanics allow for players who may not be able to convey these things well to DO so. The character should not be limited by the player...its fantasy. Not like many of us could survive a D&D style fight anyway, so why is that passable with combat but not 'roleplaying' encounters?

 

[Eric Tolle]

I personally wouldn't put it quite that way. It may have lived longer than it could/should have. By which I mean it might have been better to do with 3E what they are now doing with 4E. Problem was that at the time they were producing a new edition to save the game from retail oblivion. To have eliminated the Vancian backbone of the magic system might well have been too much for players of the time to accept. It would have had its champions but might have been a deal-breaker as well and 3E HAD to succeed solidly.

This is something I find a bit amusing, considering that I've seen mana systems for D&D for what, 25+ years now? When did the Arduin Grimores first come out anyway?

Nearly every group I played with experimented with non-Vancian magic systems. I'd say a large portion of the D&D playing segment was getting away from Vancian magic early on.

The intervening years and the other improvements brought by 3E really were not kind to the Vancian system. I think a Vancian system is fine, even superior for a SIMPLE game system, but as D&D became ever more complex those Vancian limitations became crippling.

The simplest way of getting away from Vancian magic was simply to say that mages could rememorize their expended spells at any time- taking 10 minutes per level.

One odd result of that was that I would speak to players who felt that rogues were completely useless after say, 5th level. After all, a mage could always cast as many Knock spells as needed, by taking the time to rememorize them.

 

[TwoSix]

Lack of prep work? That's exactly one of the things 4E is trying to solve. Not to mention that there's a lot of prep work in WoW unless you're doing exclusively easy solo content. Even finding a group for an instance can take hours; preparing for a raid takes hours every day.

The prep work in playing WoW involves turning on your computer and logging in. The fact that you may have to "prep" (by farming consumables, getting enchants, etc.) doesn't preclude the fact that you're still PLAYING.

Solo content? There's a rule in every single PnP RPG that you cannot have a 1 person adventure? That's new by me.

So you're playing a PnP RPG all by yourself, no DM? Interesting....

More complex combat? More intricate encounters? That doesn't gibe well with your "Infinite content/Imagination-based" statement. Either PnP is more open-ended or it can't be as intricate or complex; you can't have both. Personally I'm going with PnP is more open-ended

Infinite content is more of a story thing. I've yet to hear of a PnP encounter that involves the coordination needed for Vael, C'Thun, Four Horseman, etc.

Available 24/7? Depends on what aspect of the game you're looking at. You can't raid just any time you want to, for example.

Well, it is unaccessible for a few hours on Tuesday. But besides that, you can play whenever you want.

Faster pace? Again, a boss fight in WoW can take 10+ minutes. A boss fight in D&D generally takes 1 minute or less (of "game time" at least). Seems to me that D&D is much faster paced.

What? D&D is faster paced because the IN GAME TIME is faster? I'm glad I don't play those PnP games with 1 second rounds, my poor heart couldn't take it.

Ability to play with people you want to play with? I guess that depends on where you live. In my area, you can get pretty much any kind of RPG/party you want, any day of the week. I know people who literally have a different game every day of the week.

You either live in a college town or an extreme statistical outlier. I know many people who spend months looking for a gaming group.

Yeah, you can't play against computer-controlled opponents in PnP. I'll give that one to you free and clear. You can certainly fight other player-controlled characters, though.

True, although I don't know many PnP games that are PvP oriented. DDM certainly is, though.

Visually based? Isn't one of the constant complaints about 3rd and 4th edition being that they're too integrated with miniatures?

You're not seriously comparing 3D animated characters and backgrounds to an unmoving mini, are you? The ability to physically see what your character is doing is a big draw for computer RPGs over PnP.

In short, the only valid item IMO is "You can play against computer-controlled opponents", which seems, well, obvious and pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of what mechanics are badwrongfun about WoW.

Sorry, but all of his items are valid points. Stating that both WoW and PnP games have various strengths is hardly an attack on PnP, and I see no reason why the thoughtful post by GSHamster was treated as such.