• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

What is your feelings on 4e's relation to World of Warcraft?

  • I've played WoW, and I think 4e is like WoW

    Votes: 45 20.2%
  • I've played WoW, and I don't think 4e is like WoW

    Votes: 97 43.5%
  • I've never played WoW, and I think 4e is like WoW

    Votes: 13 5.8%
  • I've never played WoW, and I don't think 4e is like WoW

    Votes: 37 16.6%
  • I was hoping for punch and pie

    Votes: 31 13.9%

Fanaelialae

Legend
Someone doesn't have to be a liar to be mistaken.

Several people in this thread have already been pointed out as having been clearly mistaken about their "facts".

Given that, it seems fair to question how much of either WoW or 4e some of them have actually played. If you don't really leave the starting area of WoW or don't play more than 30 minutes of 4e, before you decide you don't like it and quit, it is questionable how well you can be said to know these games.

That's not to say that these people would like these games if they'd played them longer, but rather that playing a few minutes of either is not enough to give one a complete understanding. I say this having played innumerable hours of both (WoW in particular is a significantly different creature at the low levels when compared to the high).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andor

First Post
You might want to explain this. It's a bit out there, and frankly, is not intuitive. I for one, do not have an idea of what would make you feel like 4e was "written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming". Can you give more description?

I think it reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in Thai Cooking, myself.

In object oriented programming a subroutine is treated as an object that can be passed around by the code. So for example you might pass the subroutine for damage the name of a weapon and it will return the damage done by that weapon. So you send the [W] object [longsword] and it sends you back [1d8].

4e, with its use of keywords(push, slide), subroutine call like language (IE: 3[W] + Str damage), and arbitrary units (squares) reads more like code than normal english. One of my first thoughts on reading the rules book was that you could just feed the whole powers section to a decent parser and you wouldn't even have to retype it to have programmed it.
 


Hereticus

First Post
I don't see many people here claiming anything is "just like" WoW except the ones on the "4E is nothing like WoW" side putting words into others' mouths, because they are badly in need of a convenient strawman.

I have had it said at my game table, no less. I wrote the OP after someone said it in a chatroom I was in. Are you calling me a liar?

What we have going on are two camps yelling past each other without making an attempt to understand what is being expressed (while poorly stated) by the other.

One camp that favors older editions over 4.0E and on average are not big WoW (or other video game) players are criticizing 4.0E as being too much like WoW.

The other camp favors 4.0E over earlier editions and on average are more likely to be WoW (or other video game) players, and they see very few similarities between 4.0E and WoW.

I believe my post from way back on page three was one of the more insightful on on this entire Vecna forsaken thread, but had no comments on it related to the OP.


I have never played WoW, nor any other video game (excepting Space Invaders a hand full of times).

My only exposure to WoW came from South Park.

But it impossible to exist in society and not understand what a video game is.

There are two video game characteristics that I believe have influenced 4.0E, and in my opinion both are negatives.

1) Balance: In WotC's quest to have all classes and races balance with each other in all combat scenarios, many of the races and classes seem a bit sterile, missing much of the uniqueness they had in previous editions.

2) Range: No spell has a range greater than 100 feet, which is less than medium range in the previous edition. It is my opinion that range was limited by design so that all action could fit on a computer monitor.

As I said many times earlier, I like 4.0E. But I see those two negatives as video game derived.

Note: When people who are not WoW players compare 4.0E to WoW, they are likely categorizing all video games into one, using the name of the one they heard of most and demonizing it. In a similar manner, some non role players categorize all RPGs as D&D.

So in conclusion, there seems to be significant differences between 4.0E and WoW, and to call them similar (as some are doing) would be incorrect.

However IMVHO those that are stating (complaining) that they are similar are not expressing what they are dissatisfied with in an accurate manner. They are likely objecting that 4.0E had been designed as a game with a video game feel, and WoW being the most popular one was the demon it was compared to.

For those who disagree with the 4.0E and WoW comparison, do you believe that 4.0E has more of a video game feel than earlier editions?

This is not a loaded question. As I said above, I have enjoyed playing 4.0E.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Charwoman Gene

Adventurer
In object oriented programming a subroutine is treated as an object that can be passed around by the code.*snip*.

I think you would have seen more understanding from me if you had left off "Object Oriented" from it. Message passing and passing functions as parameters do not require OO philosophy, and 4e, while clearly showing similar patterns to well-structured systems, it isn't necessarily OOP.
weapon Pact_Blade implements implement would be better defined in the rules if it was.

Thanks for increased explanation though.
 

Charwoman Gene

Adventurer
What we have going on are two camps yelling past each other without making an attempt to understand what is being expressed (while poorly stated) by the other.


And the people pointing out clear, unassaible change to the design of 2e-3e era D&D elements to line up to fairly unique WoWisms. I think that camp has both major fanboys of 4e and those who don't like it so much, most of which have a decent amount of WoW expeinece.

And there is the camp, pretending to be "above" the petty conflict and trying to act superior by casting the conversation into a dichotomy it doesn't fit in.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
For those who disagree with the 4.0E and WoW comparison, do you believe that 4.0E has more of a video game feel than earlier editions?

No, I don't think so.

Back in 2e I remember thinking that spell-like abilities, with their x/day mechanic, were surprisingly video-gamey (I was playing Final Fantasy Legend for the Game Boy at the time). D&D, IMO, has always had these elements, largely because (early) CRPGs stole many of their ideas from D&D. In actuality, it's WoW and other CRPGs that are D&D-ish.

I think that many the superficial similarities between the two come from the fact that they are both games, and therefore the designers have similar goals in mind. That those playing the games should have fun. 4e uses some elements resembling those found in video games, but then so did earlier editions. IMO, 4e is influenced by more modern conceptions as to what constitutes that fun (ie, being awesome is fun but arbitrary deathtraps aren't), which many conflate with the modern video games that also follow this design philosophy.

That doesn't make it any more like a video game than earlier editions. It just means that definitions of fun change over time. Just like those earlier editions, it seems that TTRPGs and CRPGs often follow parallel paths of philosophy, probably because the designers take inspiration from each other. They'd be fools not to, in my opinion.

TLDR; no, 4e isn't any more like a video game than earlier editions. However, it does use a more modern conception of fun in it's design principles, also often seen in modern video games, which is likely the basis for such comparisons.
 

Jack99

Adventurer
Are you calling people liars? Watch out, Rehan doesn't like that kind of thing... :hmm::D

Not at all. Merely saying that it seems some people might base their feeling of 4e = WoW on a readthrough of the PHB or whatever they have picked up on messageboards, instead of actual play.

;)
 

Rechan

Adventurer
Hereticus said:
In a similar manner, some non role players categorize all RPGs as D&D.
This statement, of all the rest, really drove the point. Your post was very well constructed. Here, have some XP. :)
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
For those who disagree with the 4.0E and WoW comparison, do you believe that 4.0E has more of a video game feel than earlier editions?
You know, I like this question far less than I like the World of Warcraft comparison, simply because it is far more nebulous and vague. Considering the incredibly diverse variety of videogames out on the market today, trying to compare different versions of D&D to "a videogame" with no other qualifiers is like trying to compare different versions of D&D to "a book", without even specifying what genre or period of books you are making the comparison to. And on that level, the only real comparison you can make is concerning the inherent differences between the mediums themselves, which are almost always absolute. D&D is a tabletop RPG, not a videogame, and those two mediums are inherently different in the way people experience them. Directly comparing the mediums themselves gets you nowhere.

Still, on a somewhat more focused comparison between D&D and fantasy RPG videogames, I will say that I don't really think that 4E takes any more from videogames than any other edition. I mean, one of the most videogame-like things I have seen so far in D&D is the 3E Sorcerer. The original Final Fantasy was practically a direct rip-off of D&D (up to and including good dragon Bahamut, evil dragon Tiamat, six-armed Mariliths, and squid-headed Mind Flayers), but it used an altered version of D&D's Vancian magic in which mages had a limited number of spells assigned to different levels, and a number of uses per day for each level. In other words, the magic system in that game is exactly like the Sorcerer class introduced to D&D more than a decade later in 3E.

Other than that sentiment, I will agree with Fanaelialae. The important thing is a general progression of what people think is fun and what is considered good game design. What 4E does is better described as an attempt to keep up with those ideas, rather than an explicit emulation of any videogames in particular. I will say, though, that I think 4E is a bit unusual compared to earlier editions in that regard, since I think earlier editions were less concerned with modern trends in game design (well, in the PHB releases, anyway, many 3E splatbooks like Incarnum and the Tomes of Battle and Magic got away from that a lot).
 

Remove ads

Top