Why is the WoW influence a bad thing?

[Gundark]

I see lots of people complaining about 4e as having lots of WoW influences (which I really don't see myself). Now I do play WoW. I have a high level Warrior and Rogue on both the alliance and horde side.

I just don't get why it would be a bad thing for 4e to take on some of the good/fun aspects of WoW.

I really don't get it. Explain please.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I see lots of people complaining about 4e as having lots of WoW influences (which I really don't see myself). Now I do play WoW. I have a high level Warrior and Rogue on both the alliance and horde side.

I just don't get why it would be a bad thing for 4e to take on some of the good/fun aspects of WoW.

I really don't get it. Explain please.

Game design around per-encounter rather than per-day is, I think, totally awesome. But some folks feel that just isn't D&D.

But I think what happens is that people hear "draws inspiration from MMORPGs" and think "Oh no! They're giving in to all the morons, internet trolls, and kidz thet kant spellz0rz!"

 

[GSHamster]

WoW is more popular than D&D. Hence, some people feel threatened by that, by the idea that their chosen activity may be "worse" or less fun than some other activity.

Thus, they seek to redefine WoW as the wrong kind of fun, and strenuously reject any ideas that appear to come from that source.

 

[LightPhoenix]

WoW is more popular than D&D. Hence, some people feel threatened by that, by the idea that their chosen activity may be "worse" or less fun than some other activity.

Thus, they seek to redefine WoW as the wrong kind of fun, and strenuously reject any ideas that appear to come from that source.

I concur. Plus, I think there's a niche thing, where some people actually don't want the game to get more popular.

 

[Rechan]

Game design around per-encounter rather than per-day is, I think, totally awesome. But some folks feel that just isn't D&D.

I agree. And it's not D&D because it's not been in D&D before. The same way that the Spontaneous Caster wasn't in D&D before. Or monsters with class levels. Or ...

Per-encounter abilities address one of D&D's problems: games screeching to a halt at 10am to rest because the wizard blew his magical load in the first encounter of the day. Or the wizard sits there and frets about using that spell Now because he might need it Later.

The move away from Vancian spellcasting is IMHO a good thing. It's a sacred cow that needed to die a long time ago.

More Importantly, Per-Encounter abilities, Talent Trees, et al, are also found in many other pen-and-paper RPGs. Exalted, for instance, has powers with a duration of the Encounter.

But I think what happens is that people hear "draws inspiration from MMORPGs" and think "Oh no! They're giving in to all the morons, internet trolls, and kidz thet kant spellz0rz!"

Wait, I thought we all ready had those people in D&D; we call them "Munchkins".

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I agree with BiggusGeekus

some people feel that if the game mechanics starts to resemble wow, that some how the social interaction of wow will some how magically transfer to d&d, and d&d will resemble wow in more then just a few spars mechanics. this is very illogical notion, to think that game mechanics will influence the way people socially interact, and how the players and dm act towards echother.

the game is flexible because of the dm. wow doesen't have that, and this makes the differences in d&d and wow so vast that they will never be the same.

if d&d becomes dmless, then i would worry. Until then its all fun and games.

 

[Rechan]

I hate to break it to some people, but D&D is a verbal video game. Seriously, look at the system. It hinges pretty much on "Kill monster, take their stuff, use stuff to buy magical items to kill more monsters to take their stuff to". 95% of the spells are combat-oriented. The social rules in the game consist of "Roll Diplomacy, Gather Info, Intimidation, or Bluff vs. Sense Motive", the end. No matter how you want to dress it up, the system is built on combat, which gives you XP, so you can get another level to fight bigger things.

There are several notions and such that come from video games that are fun. Take the Warlock from WoW. The Warlock is based off of Diablo II's Necromancer. Both are fun classes, because the classes revolve around applying negative effects to the enemies like poisons and curses, or spells that kill the target over several rounds rather than one big gob of damage. That is fun. I would very much enjoy a class with those abilities, or a class that can just layer negative effects on the enemies - shaken, slowed, weakened, etc. The Anti-Marshal, if you will.

Now why is it wrong to include those in the game if a Videogame thought it first, versus basing it off of a Book? Because D&D pretty much killed Tolkien/Jack Vance and took their stuff.

[Sidenote: Some other aspects of WoW which I enjoyed were, quite simply, the story elements. Orcs used to be maurading evil monsters, but that was because they were corrupted by demons; once the Demon was defeated, they returned to their honor-based roots of being primitive, strong warriors with a noble tradition. That's more engaging than "Orc evil, it smash!" The Forsaken are also a fun race because yes, they're Undead; undead who are Awakened from the influences of a Lich. I like undead. I find these are really nice influences for races that I would play.]

 

[Zurai]

Well, to be blunt, the "WoW mechanics" aren't anything that WoW didn't already steal (well, actually, other MMORPGs stole them first, then WoW stole and refined from them, since that's what Blizzard does so well) from D&D/PnP RPGs in the first place.

Talent trees? Already existed as feat chains in the initial release of 3.0, and were refined into talent trees in d20 modern.
Per-encounter resources? Again, already existed in 3.0 (barbarians can only rage 1/encounter, for example).
De-emphasis of limited number of spells per day? Every other fantasy RPG out there already had that.

Oh, and amusingly enough, for all the complaints about "action video game WoW junky-ism" etc, PvE fights in WoW actually take longer than fights in 3.5 For example, the Nefarian boss encounter in old pre-expansion WoW (a very powerful black dragon with minions) took 40 people ~10-15 minutes to kill. A comparable fight in D&D would be over, one way or another, in 10 rounds max. Especially since it was an encounter for max-level characters; in D&D terms, there'd be multiple Time Stops, Wishes, Reality Maelstroms, Undeath to Deaths, etc, being flung around every round, while us WoW players are limited to the equivalent of Orb of Frost

 

[FireLance]

Per-encounter abilities address one of D&D's problems: games screeching to a halt at 10am to rest because the wizard blew his magical load in the first encounter of the day.

Now, while I generally like the idea of per encounter abilities, this isn't really accurate, either. It is just as easy to handwave the refreshing of per day abilities as it is to handwave the refreshing of per encounter abilities. The game shouldn't screech to a halt either way.

What some people don't like is the idea of an adventuring "day" that lasts less than an hour, game time. It's a flavor issue, not a gameplay issue.

 

[Zurai]

What some people don't like is the idea of an adventuring "day" that lasts less than an hour, game time. It's a flavor issue, not a gameplay issue.

No, it's a gameplay issue. Take Red Hand of Doom, for example - the PCs are on a VERY strict time table. After X number of days, the army invades, period. If they havn't done Y adventure-related tasks, it's pretty much Total Country Kill. If they have to stop and rest after every other encounter in Red Hand of Doom, they will never make that deadline.

There's other examples, too - ghosts that re-form after a few hours, slain guards that don't check in and thus alert the fortress, that lich rolled a 1 for the number of days it takes him to return to his phylactery, etc etc.