Why is the WoW influence a bad thing?

[frankthedm]

#3) Plan ahead a little better...which may involve things like running away from an encounter earlier in the day, or letting the fighter finish off a foe instead of casting that additional Magic Missile.

There is the rub. Not everyone wants to ’do nothing*’ every couple of rounds when they play a caster. Some players appreciate the amount forethought rewarded with the Vancian system, others have avoided spell casters since the inception of the D&D game because they only have a few hours of spare time to game and want to use as much of it as possible vicariously dealing Death & Destruction to their foes.

Now there is the option of using wands and staves once a caster runs dry, but the GP = Character power paradigm of 3E does discourage that.

*it is not literally ‘do nothing’, but more of “Not doing the most fun thing to do”

 

[WhatGravitas]

Now there is the option of using wands and staves once a caster runs dry, but the GP = Character power paradigm of 3E does discourage that.

Not really. If you're using that paradigm, there are chances that you'll follow the wealth guidelines. In which case you'll get more goodies (wands and staves), than you can fire.

It only feels bad, but in play it's a good way to keep you "always on". Especially with careful crafting.

Cheers, LT.

 

[maddman75]

Wait. How is this "defined party roles" not a D&Dism? Try running a 1E adventure without a cleric and see how far you get. Try running a 2E adventure without a frontline fighter and see if it doesn't result in a TPK. In 3.x, all adventures after a certain level *ASSUME* you have a mage of that level.

Why is this considered a WoW feature?

In WoW, there are multiple ways to play the game. You can solo, explore and do quests on your own. You can play multiplayer, grouping with friends to do the same or do 'instances' where you explore a difficult area or dungeon. And there's also PvP, where you fight players from the other faction. One of the things that makes WoW so successful is that you can bounce between these pretty easily.

The defined roles comes from the multiplayer. You often use very different skills, or even different gear, playing much differently than when you are going it alone. There are clearly defined roles. As mentioned, tactics in WoW rely on threat. This is a measure of how ticked off a monster is at you, governs who they will attack. Where they are attacked from is of much less importance. There's no flanking, attacks of opportunity, or other position based tactics.

So you have several roles. Tanks are tough characters that are good at generating threat and taking punishment. The warriors are the best at this, with high hit points, lots of armor, and special abilities to generate extra threat, though paladins and properly specced Druids can do in a pinch. DPS stands for damage per second, and these are the folks that do the actual killing. Rogues and Wizards are the main DPS classes. They have to be careful though, if they throw out too much damage too soon, the bad guy will forget all about the tank and come charging. Healers Their job is to keep everyone else alive. The Priest is the main healer, though there are also Druids and Paladins that do an acceptable job. They also have to be careful - healing a character that a monster is fighting will generate threat, and may send monsters charging. Those are the main roles, though Crowd Control is useful as well. There's not really a 'crowd control' class, but several classes have good abilities in this regard - Hunters setting traps, Wizards setting traps, and so on. Anything to keep the party from getting ganged up on.

I welcome this idea of clearly defined roles. It makes Warcraft a lot of fun. I wouldn't want to see the threat based tactics though, too much bookeeping on my part.

 

[frankthedm]

A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard.

I beg to differ! The monster sees the shiney porcupine/armadillo trying to guard the smaller 'young'. It sidseteps that defender and gnaws on the unarmored 'young' whose smell attracted the big hungry monster's attention in the first place. That smell being the "unlimted amount of herbs and spices that cost less than a GP" contained within the components pouch

 

[AllisterH]

Well, sometimes it is mechanics. I like WoW, and consider it to be a very good game. That being said, I'm not sure that adding a "taunt" mechanic (like the Knight got) is a good move.

WoW is a threat-based game without collision detection. Its central gameplay revolves around manipulating threat. The person with the most threat gets attacked. It's a simple concept, but one that leads to pretty deep gameplay. That's why a Taunt mechanic is essential in WoW.

In contrast, D&D is a position-based game with collision detection. A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard. Positioning in combat is or should be the central gameplay element of D&D, and a Taunt seems to be out-of-character with that.

Thank you.

This is the FIRST post that actually explained what people meant when they say "D&D is becoming too videogamey".

This I can actually understand and we do know that the paladin and fighter ganged up on the knight and took his stuff so the "taunt" mechanic might actually show up. Personally, I think/my hunch is that the AoO abilities was made a talent tree for fighters, the knight's challenge line of abilities became a paladin talent tree while both the paladin and the fighter share the "bodyguard ability" talent tree.

Personally, as weird as it sounds, I think the knight using insults to challenge a foe makes no sense, but conversely, in terms of flavour, a paladin making a challenge seems more inline with fantasy. Its the whole "backed up by divine favour" in the paladin's case which makes the mechanic work in terms of fluff.

re: The Taunt mechanic
That said, I do think one thing D&D has never done well is the classic "bodyguard" fighter. Only the knight and the crusader IMO seem able to do this job at all (sure, the AoO spiked chain tripper can control the area but he can't actually take hits for his charge). The taunt mechanic, until I saw Bo9S, was the only rules I saw that at least forced the target to focus on the fighter even when the wizard in back is more dangerous.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I dislike the idea of D&D becoming more like WoW, on multiple levels.

Primarily, though, it's because - in absolute terms - I do not like the WoW combat mechanics. They're ok for a videogame, but even in that context, they're not especially original or entertaining. They're just the typical MMORPG mechanics, which came about because of all the limitations of the computer platform - because of all the ways in which MMORPGs can not even begin to handle the (potential) complexities of tabletop play.

The MMO character roles evolved the way they did not because that's the most fun way to play, but because that's the easy formula the designers have found (and doggedly stuck to, ever since the days of EQ) that allows for somewhat "balanced" multiplayer real-time play.

So the idea of D&D moving closer to WoW does leave a bad taste in my mouth - because I don't see why anyone would think incorporating elements from something as primitive (in terms of gameplay) as a MMORPG is actually a good idea. I want D&D to move away from being "videogamey", but I don't have high hopes that this'll actually be the case. I'll be very happy if my fears prove unfounded, though. (I don't think I'll find myself needing to play 4E to find a game, but I'd rather it was a fun system, obviously.)

I just don't see that happen.
As long as D&D has 100+ spells, feats and talents, 8+
classes and a dozen or more of different combat options, it will never be a simple as any MMORPG. (Just talking about combat rules here, naturally.)

And honestly, that's only something it got in D&D 3. Before that, it "only" had spells and non-weapon profiencies.

The resolution mechanic for each individual action possible might be streamlined, but that doesn't say that the complexity (or rather: richness) of options change. There might be some options that were also prominently featured in a WoW or any other (MMO)CRRPG, but that doesn't mean you get the inherent limitations and shortcomings of these.

 

[GSHamster]

I beg to differ! The monster sees the shiney porcupine/armadillo trying to guard the smaller 'young'. It sidseteps that defender and gnaws on the unarmored 'young' whose smell attracted the big hungry monster's attention in the first place. That smell being the "unlimted amount of herbs and spices that cost less than a GP" contained within the components pouch

True enough. This historically, has been something that D&D has rarely got right. The optimum tactic for a monster is to nuke the squishies (wizard, rogue) first, while ignoring the fighters. (Oddly enough, this is the tactic of WoW PvP, where there is no threat.)

Most DMs play monsters sub-optimally, and have them attack/target the fighter (at least initially, until the wizard does something the monster can't ignore) because it is more "fun". 3E and AoOs tried to add a mechanical reason for doing this, but I'm not sure they fully suceeded.

 

[frankthedm]

the wizard in back is more dangerous.

And THAT is the heart of Vancian system's issues. By collecting all a wizards power into a handful of actions the wizard has to chose measure out, it makes killing him VERY quickly a GOOD Idea. A warrior does the same damage every round, over the course of a battle, he did the same for each round. The caster however, if given the chance, can basically unleash the power that would have lasted him a whole day over the course of minute.

Now if a caster is balanced against the assumption he will be doing everything he can do more or less every combat, it stops being so tactically sound to tell the mooks to “kill the mage first”. Fear and superstition still may contribute to that idea, but at least it stops being 'the best idea' for anyone with an inkling of how casters cast thier spells.

 

[Grog]

Running away & other avoidance techniques (points #1 & #3) are ingredients in intelligent play. IME, too many players these days think that any enemy they encounter is one they MUST defeat right here & now. There is no concept of strategic retreat, so instead of trying to find a way around a situation, they head in like they were bulletproof. While they may indeed win THAT encounter, it is a pyrrhic victory- they have expended so much of their resources that they can't handle encounters they should be able to.

First, it's worth pointing out that the players and the DM don't always agree on what constitutes an encounter that the players can handle. Sometimes the players can handle more than the DM thinks they can - and sometimes, considerably less.

But anyway, let's say that your players make what you think is the "intelligent" decision and run away from that particular encounter. And let's also say that they manage to successfully escape from the enemy (despite the fact that such things are far from guaranteed in D&D).

What happens next? Well, then they move on and face the encounters that you feel are appropriate. And after four of those (or thereabouts), their resources are expended and they need to rest. So we're right back where we started.

I refer you to my original post.

Most of your points have been answered by others already, but I'd like to note that you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again. When the PCs' resources are expended, you say that instead of resting, they should "reach down deep and find something within themselves that they didn't know they had." What, exactly, does this mean in game terms? What assistance does this "reach(ing) down deep" provide to the PCs within the context of the game?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, sometimes it is mechanics. I like WoW, and consider it to be a very good game. That being said, I'm not sure that adding a "taunt" mechanic (like the Knight got) is a good move.

WoW is a threat-based game without collision detection. Its central gameplay revolves around manipulating threat. The person with the most threat gets attacked. It's a simple concept, but one that leads to pretty deep gameplay. That's why a Taunt mechanic is essential in WoW.

In contrast, D&D is a position-based game with collision detection. A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard. Positioning in combat is or should be the central gameplay element of D&D, and a Taunt seems to be out-of-character with that.

That is in fact a fear I can understand, especially together with reading maddman75's post about rules.

That said, there are many ways to implement taunt or challenge abilities that do not result in the same as the "aggro/threat" rule of WoW.

If a Paladin challenges someone, he might get special bonus to attack and damage against this foe if either the foe is not attacking him and trying to ignore his challenge (behaving dishonorable and therefore worthy of some divine wrath), or if the two actually fight it out (without direct aid of allies, allowing the paladin to also challenge the normally more powerful BBEG that he normally can't defeat alone). That changes the feeling significantly. (Though I am not sure if the second part is so much fun for the other players that have to hold back. We'll see if that's something that will be used or if the designers have a better idea. )