# WoW and 4e - where's the beef?



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

I've seen a lot of criticism of 4e. Some I think are valid, some aren't.

The one criticism that continues to baffle me is the comparison between 4e and World of Warcraft. I see it thrown around _all_ the time. Not just here, but in RL, elsewhere on the internet, etc. 

I've played 4e, and I've World of Warcraft; I don't think the comparison is very apt. They have two similarities that I can find, and otherwise are different beasts.

I've noticed that of those that make the claim, very few have _played_ World of Warcraft.

So here's my question:

To those who say it's like WoW, how many of you have *played* WoW?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

Well no good will come of this. I have played WoW but not 4e, so can't say. But 4e does look and read (to me) like a manual for a video game

Not saying anything bad about the game play wise as I have not nor do I plan to play it , just commenting on the look and how it read is all


----------



## Blizzardb (Jun 20, 2009)

I've actually never played WoW, but I've played quite a few WoW clones like Warhammer: Online and LOTRO. In my opinion, D&D 4E is no more similar to them than it is to any other computer RPG (a genre that D&D inspired in the first place). Also, it is no more similar to them than any of the older editions was.

I think the main reason people are making this comparison are the class roles and the MMORPG archetypes (tank, etc).


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

Blizzardb said:


> I've actually never played WoW,




Oh man with your name that is just classic.  


I think one of the issue is the look, another is the class roles and over all way the classes works. I could be wrong but  I have been told that by someone who tired it for 2 months and sold his books 


Others won't think that and some will latch onto anything just to hate it.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Blizzardb said:


> I think the main reason people are making this comparison are the class roles and the MMORPG archetypes (tank, etc).



Which baffles me. 

The archetypes exist in MMOs because they exist in RPGs. The archetypes are _based_ on the four man D&D team: Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User. 
Fighter = Tank 
Magic-User = Blaster 
Cleric = Healer 
Thief = Damage dealer

The only difference between MMOs/4e and earlier editions of D&D is the earlier editions didn't spell this out. Anyone who played, that lacked a Melee based class, or a Healing class, _felt_ that they were not well-rounded. In fact, you ask a group missing one of these, "So, what do you guys need?" they can _tell_ you. The earlier editions also _assumed_ that you had all those archetypes filled. 

Other RPGs make this obvious; HERO, for instance, has archetype classifications they spell out. Brick, Blaster, Martial Artist, etc.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Oh man with your name that is just classic.




My nick was "Blizzard" when Blizzard were called "Silicon & Synapse". They stole it from me


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

well what ya do is get a bunch of your friends together , put on costumes and Raid the office...ya might go to jail but Gods that would be funny.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

4E closer resembles City of Heroes/Villains to be honest.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> But 4e does look and read (to me) like a manual for a video game
> 
> Not saying anything bad about the game play wise as I have not nor do I plan to play it , just commenting on the look and how it read is all



If 4E looked and read like a videogame manual, it would be 15 pages long (5 pages for each language), be printed in black and white, and wouldn't explain a damn thing.

_*grumbles about sorry state of videogame manuals these days*_

To address the main topic, I have not played World of Warcraft, but I don't really see the comparisons. I don't think 4E resembles that game any more than any other version of D&D has resembled any other videogame with a fantasy setting and a class system.


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 20, 2009)

I play WoW about 20 hours a week, 4e a small fraction of that.

They aren't any more alike than any other version of D&D was.

FOR THE HORDE!


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't see any link either, beyond formalizing the roles as has been suggested above.

If you had an agenda, you could force the appearance of a link (cool-down timers == encounter powers, etc.) but that's pretty disingenuous to my mind.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> If 4E looked and read like a videogame manual, it would be 15 pages long (5 pages for each language), be printed in black and white, and wouldn't explain a damn thing.




They only do that to sell the guidebooks, which people just look up online anyway.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> If 4E looked and read like a videogame manual, it would be 15 pages long (5 pages for each language), be printed in black and white, and wouldn't explain a damn thing.




Well I did say to me. I think it was the color coating and all the little icones for ranged and melle and such looked like something ya would see in a booklet with an xbox game


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 20, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Well I did say to me. I think it was the color coating and all the little icones for ranged and melle and such looked like something ya would see in a booklet with an xbox game



I don't see those as videogame inspirations...

I think it far more likely that they got the idea for that kind of formatting from Magic the Gathering, which uses the same kind of color-coding, special symbols, and highly specific and often technical language. After all, both games have the same kinds of problems, and the same solutions can work for both.

Of course, I will admit that various videogames do the exact same thing, but I wouldn't say it is something you would really see in the game _manuals_... Regardless, videogames tend to be a lot more sloppy about the way they provide that kind of information to the players, simply because the player _doesn't_ need to know the information perfectly in order for the game to function. So I will say it resembles Magic the Gathering more than any videogame I am familiar with.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

Well never have played magic so I did not have that info, I did and do however play video games and have seen the formatting in a few. So thats where  my mind linked the look to


----------



## resistor (Jun 20, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> I don't see those as videogame inspirations...




Maybe not modern videogames, but a lot of older games, particularly strategy ones, had manuals like this.  I distinctly remember my Civilization 2 manual, which had the entire tech tree laid out in a format that look extremely similar to 4e's power layout.

Not necessarily a criticism, but that Civ2 manual is definitely what I think of whenever I see 4e's power layout.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 20, 2009)

ya know civ 2 did come to mind. There was another very similar but I can not recall the name


----------



## EroGaki (Jun 20, 2009)

I have played WoW and a bit of 4E, and I can see a number of similarities between the two. I'm not saying that they _are _the same, mind you, but some aspects of 4e make me think of WoW:

1. The traditional roles are now officially referred as such. Sure, people have been calling fighters "tanks" for ages now, but only in 4E are they defined as "Defenders." Defender sounds a lot like tank to me. Granted, it really doesn't change much in the way the class functions; fighter go and kill things with sharp metal sticks, now and always. But the inclusion of Title carries with it a certain WoWism, if such a word exists.

2. Many of the class powers carry with them a WoW-like mechanic: Cool down times. Perhaps it was not intentional on the part of Wizards, but it is there. Encounter powers can only be used once per encounter, and are replenished after 5 minutes of rest, thus giving these abilities a 5 minute cool down. Many powers in WoW are similar, being useful only in a single fight (unless you are in a BG, or something really long).

3. Magic Items are very close to those in WoW in a number of ways. First off, any character can potentially craft magic items by learning the Ritual Caster feat; in WoW, you can pick up any two professions, regardless of class. Some of these professions are parallel to those in 4E: Alchemists make potions, enchanters can enchant varies items, etc. 
 In addition, there is the ability to disenchant a magic item into its component parts, producing a substance called Residuum. Using Residuum, you can, along with the proper ritual, you can make new magic items. With the exception of the Artificer in 3.5 Eberron,  this has never happened in D&D (if it has, correct me if I'm wrong ). This is the biggest parallel to WoW in my mind; enchanters in WoW can disenchant magic items and make other items out of the shards and dust.

Now these are the things that stuck out immediatly in my mind. I don't play 4E anymore, so I may have missed some of them. I am not saying that 4E is Pnp WoW, I am just commenting on some of the similarities I, as a WoW, have noticed. Your opinion may vary, of course. But this might help explain why many people see a parallel betwen the two games.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> But the inclusion of Title carries with it a certain WoWism, if such a word exists.



Putting a label something makes it WoW like?



> 2. Many of the class powers carry with them a WoW-like mechanic: Cool down times. Perhaps it was not intentional on the part of Wizards, but it is there. Encounter powers can only be used once per encounter, and are replenished after 5 minutes of rest, thus giving these abilities a 5 minute cool down. Many powers in WoW are similar, being useful only in a single fight (unless you are in a BG, or something really long).



Except that many of the Cool Down powers come into play in things like Raids and big long fights that take way, way, way longer than 5 minutes. The reason that 4e notes "An encounter, OR five minutes" is that the power might be used out of combat, thus warranting a 'how long does this last when we're not in an encounter?"



> 3. Magic Items are very close to those in WoW in a number of ways. First off, any character can potentially craft magic items by learning the Ritual Caster feat; in WoW, you can pick up any two professions, regardless of class.



You also need to be trained in Arcana, and spend a feat. In WoW, you get those professions free.  



> Some of these professions are parallel to those in 4E: Alchemists make potions, enchanters can enchant varies items, etc.



Except there was Alchemists and making Alchemy, and crafting items, in 3e. Hell, you didn't need a feat to make alchemical items (just a skill), but you needed a Feat to make magical items in 3e.



> But this might help explain why many people see a parallel betwen the two games.



My belief is that people use the "It's just like WoW" as a catch-all derogatory without any experience/knowledge with either. It's just an easy dismissal; I highly doubt those that do think it's like WoW (but have not played it) know anything about making items in WoW, or the Disenchant method, for instance.

If you look hard enough, you can find similarities between two things that, while they have something in common, are not alike. "4e is just like Anime" because it has super-powered characters with wuxia named powers. "4e is just like Exalted" because there are effects that last all encounter/scene, and everyone has magical powers. "4e is just like M:tG" because of the symbols/colors, and the use of Cards (Power cards, quest cards). "4e is just like a boardgame" because it's so focused on square based movement. "4e is just like furries" because there are Dragonborn, which are anthropomorphic dragons with breasts. "4e is just like your mom" because (whatever).

Back before the 4e books were out, one of the common messageboard criticism was that 4e looked so "anime". This spawned a big long thread where someone said, "So, where's the anime?" No solid examples were found, but the thread concluded it was just more a general feeling or impression without straight parallels.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2009)

I voted "I've never played WoW, and I don't think 4e is like WoW"

My complaint in the "videogamey" department was more to do with how it reminded me of arcade combat games, like _Mortal Kombat_ or _Tekken_.

My buddies & fellow groupmates, though, many of whom are major CRPG gamers were scanning through the 4Ed rulebook and horrified by elements they found in games with which they were familiar.  To paraphrase, they felt that if they wanted to play a CRPG, they'd play one they're already in.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

What I think is interesting though is that, at the time of this posting, 22% of the voters _have_ played WoW, and think 4e is like WoW.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The archetypes exist in MMOs because they exist in RPGs. The archetypes are _based_ on the four man D&D team: Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User.
> Fighter = Tank
> Magic-User = Blaster
> Cleric = Healer
> Thief = Damage dealer



To be fair, while roles kinda-sorta existed in older editions of D&D, they weren't as focused on combat. In addition, I think the roles were more defined around the PCs' strengths and weaknesses rather than their contributions to a group.

From that perspective, prior to 3e, the "roles" were more along the lines of:
Fighter = High defense; Continuous Moderate offense
Magic-User = Low defense; Continuous Low offense; Limited High offense; Limited magical utility (trade-off with limited High offense)
Cleric = Moderate defense; Continuous Low-moderate offense; Limited High-moderate offense; Limited healing and other magical utility (trade-off with limited High-moderate offense)
Thief = Low-moderate defense; Continuous Low-moderate offense; Circumstantial High-moderate offense (determining when a thief could backstab/sneak attack was less objective and more DM-dependent prior to 3e); Continuous mundane utility (scouting, overcoming locks and traps)

Hence, while the strengths and weaknesses of the various PC classes meant that they would naturally gravitate to certain roles in a party, they weren't as hard-wired into the design of the classes as 4e (and presumably, WoW - not a player). 

That said, I do agree that every edition of D&D has at least implied the existence of roles. 4e has only refined the concept, made them more combat-focused, defined them in terms of contribution to the party, and used them to influence class design.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

FireLance said:


> To be fair, while roles kinda-sorta existed in older editions of D&D, they weren't as focused on combat.



I call shenanigans there.

What was the purpose of the Fighter, outside of combat?
What was the purpose of the Cleric, outside of healing wounds from combat? 

Only two out-of-combat focuses existed:
The Thief. The thief SUCKED in a fight, but he had skills. So his lack of combat utility was balanced by him being bomb defuser. 
Non-Combat related spells from spellcasters. Your Charm Person, your Adjure, your Scry and teleport, etc.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My buddies & fellow groupmates, though, many of whom are major CRPG gamers were scanning through the 4Ed rulebook and horrified by elements they found in games with which they were familiar.



You mean like hit points, healing potions, levels, and classes?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> You mean like hit points, healing potions, levels, and classes?




Funny!

No, like marking, healing surges, K3WL POW3RZZ for all classes, etc.

Like I said, their words, not mine.


----------



## EroGaki (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Putting a label something makes it WoW like?
> 
> Except that many of the Cool Down powers come into play in things like Raids and big long fights that take way, way, way longer than 5 minutes. The reason that 4e notes "An encounter, OR five minutes" is that the power might be used out of combat, thus warranting a 'how long does this last when we're not in an encounter?"
> 
> ...




You could be right. I was simply pointing out the things that stuck out in my mind about the system. You are free think what you wish. My intention was not to say it _is _like WoW, but to point out some of the things that can cause people to think it resembles WoW. Personally, I feel that 4E has more in common to WoW than 3e does, but meh.  That's just my opinion. 

I was drawing similarities; I never said that they were the same. Any character is two feats away from being able to enchant magic items. Magic items can be disenchanted, like in WoW. That's all I'm pointing out. 

I don't think that saying the games have certain similarities is a "catch-all derogatory." WoW was, after all, based off of RPG's like D&D. What's wrong with the reverse?


----------



## FireLance (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I call shenanigans there.
> 
> What was the purpose of the Fighter, outside of combat?
> What was the purpose of the Cleric, outside of healing wounds from combat?
> ...



Exactly. Lower XP to gain a level aside, the thief's lower effectiveness in combat was supposed to be balanced by his ability to overcome noncombat challenges (admittedly, rather _specific_ noncombat challenges, but noncombat challenges nonetheless).

And if the spell lists were anything to go by, the designers expected spellcasters to prepare noncombat spells to deal with noncombat challenges (whether the players were actually encouraged to do so in play was ultimately left to the individual DM, of course). In the absence of the Insight skill, the PCs might make use of _ESP_ or _detect lies_. The PCs might also seek guidance through the use of _augury_, _divination_, _commune_, or _contact other plane_.

Of the four "base" PC classes, only one had a primarily combat role: the fighter. As is perhaps implied by the name.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> You could be right. I was simply pointing out the things that stuck out in my mind about the system. You are free think what you wish. My intention was not to say it _is _like WoW, but to point out some of the things that can cause people to think it resembles WoW



Sure; I'm just in a "Point, counterpoint" mood.  



> I don't think that saying the games have certain similarities is a "catch-all derogatory." WoW was, after all, based off of RPG's like D&D. What's wrong with the reverse?



Depends on your perspective.

I'm not exaggerating; I've seen those very claims here. Before 4e was launched, "It's just like anime" and "It's videogamey" _were_ used in a derogatory fashion, because they were used in sentences like "I don't like it because it looks videogamey".

The problem many have with the reverse is: it's dumbing D&D down, stripping away what they feel "is D&D" out of it, taking away "the roleplaying", making everything about combat, killing creativity, and taking the flavor out of everything.

Just to use a reason against videogame influence in RPGs in this very thread:


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To paraphrase, they felt that if they wanted to play a CRPG, they'd play one they're already in.


----------



## EroGaki (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Sure; I'm just in a "Point, counterpoint" mood.
> 
> Depends on your perspective.
> 
> ...




Fair enough. You do bring some good points. I know people who are turned off to 4E because it "feels video-gamey" too. Me, I've given up on 4E, not because any so called video-gameyness, but because in the end, after playing it for a few months, it didn't satisfy my D&D itch; ultimately, it didn't feel enough like D&D for me. But I might be weird.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jun 20, 2009)

I have never played WoW but i have played several other games like it online. I played 4e for awhile to see how it would play.

To me it is more the style 4e pushes forward the most. Some other posters covered some aspects. yes previous editions to a point had some of the same stuff but 4e has pushed them more forward.

And for me the game play with the power system reminded me of online games. No it wasn't the same or even mostly the same, but it did have a slightly greater feel for that than previous editions did.

But what you are asking is for peoples opinions and thats all they are. What makes something feel one way or another or why someone likes something or other. Is often a matter of perception.

This thread isn't going to get to the bottom of anything I doubt, nor is it likely to change anyones mind and it just might start up a flame war.

The bottom line is 4e is what it is and either you like it or you don't. It reminds you of what ever it reminds you of or not, due to ones own personal experiences.

Ok done rambling hopefully this makes since but it might not, it is well after 4am locally. Still dealing with insomnia as I have been all week and I am getting a bit slap happy from lack of sleep.


----------



## EroGaki (Jun 20, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> I have never played WoW but i have played several other games like it online. I played 4e for awhile to see how it would play.
> 
> To me it is more the style 4e pushes forward the most. Some other posters covered some aspects. yes previous editions to a point had some of the same stuff but 4e has pushed them more forward.
> 
> ...




True enough. It all comes down to opinions, and I've learned that most people are not willing to change theirs. Like it or don't.

By the way, I hope you get over your insomnia; having dealt with it myself on a number of occasions, I understand how much it sucks.


----------



## Belphanior (Jun 20, 2009)

I have played WoW and don't think 4e is like it. If anything it compares most closely to Dofus/Wakfu, but even that is rather tenuous.

I do think that WotC took a good look at a wide variety of successful games to analyze what made them so strong, including WoW. From this they took lessons which were springboards for their own inventions.

In some ways it is interesting to see how 4e explicitly _avoids_ being like WoW, which can be most easily seen in buffing and healing. In WoW, spells and abilities that improve yourself and others typically last a long time and are already pre-cast before the fight begins. Healing is done by a dedicated member who is absolutely rubbish at doing anything else. In 4e, buffing tends to be much more short term. Healing is done quickly, as a minor action, giving the character the ability to provide some very real assistance in other ways at the same time.

Tanking is another such example. In WoW a tank is mandatory, because a single hit from a boss will most likely destroy any of the other PCs. Thus the boss needs to be tanked all the time for things to go well. In 4e the monsters don't need to be glued to the defender at all times. In fact, when they ignore him the defender still does his job.

I think WoW may have inspired 4e by showing some problem areas, but ultimately 4e solved those problems very differently. And that is why I can't take any "4e is like WoW" comment seriously.


----------



## EroGaki (Jun 20, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> I have played WoW and don't think 4e is like it. If anything it compares most closely to Dofus/Wakfu, but even that is rather tenuous.
> 
> I do think that WotC took a good look at a wide variety of successful games to analyze what made them so strong, including WoW. From this they took lessons which were springboards for their own inventions.
> 
> ...




"Healing is done by a dedicated member who is absolutely rubbish at doing anything else." Really? My Shadow Priest begs to differ. Most of the dedicated healers in WoW are pretty good at other things. Priests melt faces. Restoration Druids are still a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Belphanior (Jun 20, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> "Healing is done by a dedicated member who is absolutely rubbish at doing anything else." Really? My Shadow Priest begs to differ. Most of the dedicated healers in WoW are pretty good at other things. Priests melt faces. Restoration Druids are still a force to be reckoned with.




How often does your shadow priest heal in Naxxramas? When I talk of a "dedicated member" I refer to an individual, not a class. Priests can be either healer or (admittedly very good) dps, but I've never seen one that can be both at once.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't really see it. I see plenty of places where WoW borrowed liberally from D&D but I don't see much connection between 4e and WoW. Now if they come out with 4.5e and replace marking with aggro management I'll reconsider the comparisons.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> In some ways it is interesting to see how 4e explicitly _avoids_ being like WoW, which can be most easily seen in buffing and healing. In WoW, spells and abilities that improve yourself and others typically last a long time and are already pre-cast before the fight begins. Healing is done by a dedicated member who is absolutely rubbish at doing anything else. In 4e, buffing tends to be much more short term. Healing is done quickly, as a minor action, giving the character the ability to provide some very real assistance in other ways at the same time.
> 
> Tanking is another such example. In WoW a tank is mandatory, because a single hit from a boss will most likely destroy any of the other PCs. Thus the boss needs to be tanked all the time for things to go well. In 4e the monsters don't need to be glued to the defender at all times. In fact, when they ignore him the defender still does his job.



Primarily I believe they didn't copy those aspects:

Buffs are a pain in the ass to calculate and continue. If they are always on, then you might as well just call your +1/2 level bonus a buff and be done with it.

Dedicated Healers: This was what the Cleric _was_ in 1e/2e. In 3e a healer was necessary (or a wand of cure lights), but clerics were made powerful to compensate. Simply put, before CoDzilla, no one wanted to play a class that did nothing but heal. That's _boring_. Players want to be saving the day, not saving the guy saving the day. In order to make the Cleric _less_ of a necessary suckfest for one person at the table, they made healing quicker and spread around more. 

Same with tanking; one thing the designers wanted to avoid in the first place was 'one hit kills' or 'save or die' effects. PCs were supposed to take a beating. That's counter-productive to 'We need a Tank, because any hit from anything significant will kill us'. 

What _I'm_ surprised WotC didn't take from WoW is the class designs. They didn't turn Rangers into Hunters. They didn't use the Shaman's totem effects. Those would have been easy to translate into the system, but they chose to move away from that.

Ultimately, what I think they took from MMOs was to show, up front, how the classes/roles work together in terms of teamwork, rather than just give you the tools and see if you figure it out. MMOs make obvious the purpose of each archetype on the battlefield. It's like a football team, with its defensive linemen, its runners, etc. MMOs showed how those roles work together, and WotC took notes.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 20, 2009)

Hmm.  I don't get the WOW vibe from the 4e mechanics, I get it from selected scattered bits of flavor.

Tieflings, tieflings in their 4e imagery are palette/alignment swapped Draenai.

Rangers/Hunters "The Hunter's Mark is generally used just prior to pulling a mob. Use of this ability provides both a +damage modifier and makes the target very visible for some distance (the pink arrow that is the trademark of the Hunter's Mark can be seen for several game-meters). (Taken from Wowwiki)"  This is directly analogous to the Hunter's Quarry striker ability.

Revenants strike me as a deliberate attempt to provide an analogue for the forsaken.

There are some noticeablly deliberate anti-WoW fluff choices too, like de-tinkering of gnomes.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 20, 2009)

From what I've seen, I think that 3.5 was a lot more like WoW than 4e is - just like in WoW in 3.5 you really had to have "system mastery" and spend time number crunching (while there's no concept of "farming" in D&D, the notion behind it was evident) in order to be effective with your character.  As we all remember, this lead to the power-builds of 3.5 where casual gamers were usually a lot weaker than someone who took the time to read through various splatbooks.

I have a friend who's a WoW junkie, and I keep trying to convince her to play 4e as an experiment to test whether or not 4e is like WoW


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't think that 4E is just like WoW and I play both a lot, but they do have similarities. Art direction is the big one for me. 4E has the same cartoony feel that WoW has and in some cases I wonder who stole that art concept from whom (4E Archons are identical to WoW revenants, especially water which are damn indistinguishable).


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Spoiler



I apologize in advance to any English majors who's eyes bleed from reading this post.



Here is some interesting anecdotal evidence, I play in two separate groups: The majority of one group actively plays WoW, the majority of the other actively plays EverQuest (but has never gotten into WoW).

The WoW group looked at the 4E books, _praised_ them for how much they resemble WoW, but does not play 4E (presumably because of all the campaigns that have not been finished).
The EQ group dosn't know anything about WoW, but would say that 4E is very different from EQ. However they are having quite a bit of fun playing 4E at the moment.

For the sake of clarity, WoW borrows from EQ and the Warcraft RTS series. EQ was based loosely off of, or at least borrowed allot from, older editions of D&D. Warcraft is rumored to be what happened to a Warhammer game that Blizzard lost the license on. 

The interesting part is that the EQ to WoW transition mirrors allot of the 3E to 4E changes: melee classes going from mostly auto-attacking (full attack) to having numerous abilities with limited effects; classes going from one generic way to play to having multiple different sub-builds; monsters being designated as single person(normal/minion), elite(elite ), or Boss(solo); tanking going from passive roll (being in melee range with special weapons while doing what you would do anyway) to an active roll (using special "defenderesque" powers and abilities); even the non-combat parts of the game were designed a bit more user friendly. One of the "original" WoW ideas was to slightly mix-up the tank-healer-dps (or CC, depending on whom you asked) "holy trinity" by allowing classes to do more than one thing (this seems to have fallen more or less to the wayside, but that is a rant for a different message board).

But for the point of all this trivia: It's not enough to note the similarities, you have to understand why they are there, and figure out if that is a good thing.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 20, 2009)

There are some similiarities but the differences are far greater.  The biggest perhaps being in D&D we control the game and the world allowing us to do and play it however we want.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 20, 2009)

Interesting discussion.

re: Healing Surges

I'm not sure what the videogame equivalent to this is....but here's an interesting point. THe original HALO:CE, was widely hailed as being revolutionary BECAUSE of its automatic healing (shields). Prior to Halo, healing required the use of stimpacks and actual healing classes so here's the question.

Is 4e's healing a videogame concept given that pre-HALO, videogames did NOT use automatic healing?

re: Read vs Play

It comes down to what others have mentioned before. 4e READS like your typical guide for a videgame but ironically, I'm almost positive that the 4e designers mentioned they used the M:TG style guide for writing and M:TG is way older than most videogames people are familiar with.

So again, is this a videgame concept even though M:TG has been using this forever?

AS an aside, the closest videogame that matches 4e in play would be the tactical RPG genre (-japanese games like Disgaes and FFT, western games like Fallout Tactics & Jagged Alliance)


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> re: Healing Surges
> 
> I'm not sure what the videogame equivalent to this is....but here's an interesting point. THe original HALO:CE, was widely hailed as being revolutionary BECAUSE of its automatic healing (shields). Prior to Halo, healing required the use of stimpacks and actual healing classes so here's the question.
> 
> Is 4e's healing a videogame concept given that pre-HALO, videogames did NOT use automatic healing?




I think you might have to clarify this. I am quite sure that games had regeneration before HALO, it is just that HALO's shields regenerated very quickly to full after not being depleted for a set amount of time. Similar to a second wind.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 20, 2009)

Saying 4e is like WoW is dumb.  The evidence usually brought up that doesn't pertain to how Tieflings look like un-sexy draenei* is usually evidence that cuild equally state "4e is like anything in the world that at one point was influenced by D&D, or heck, fantasy in general."  Typically it's along the lines of "Look, 4e has people in HEAVY ARMOR.  RING A BELL?  Or hey, look at that, the ROGUE uses DAGGERS.  WHERE HAVE I SEEN THAT BEFORE?  HMMMM."

DIsliking 4e is fine - I mean come on, this is _me_ posting - but if you're going to do so, do so for intelligent reasons.

Besides, 4e is totally Guild Wars ;p

*Seriously, that complaint I understand.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> I think you might have to clarify this. I am quite sure that games had regeneration before HALO, it is just that HALO's shields regenerated very quickly to full after not being depleted for a set amount of time. Similar to a second wind.




True, I'm thinking some of the Ultima series offered regeneration but don't hold me to that...I think the big leap forward was that Halo embraced it so that you didn't have to wait a long time to get back into the fight.

CErtainly, among shooters, Halo's shields are considered a revolutionary part of the genre.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jun 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Besides, 4e is totally Guild Wars ;p




Mister, you just won yourself some XP


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I've seen a lot of criticism of 4e. Some I think are valid, some aren't.
> 
> The one criticism that continues to baffle me is the comparison between 4e and World of Warcraft. I see it thrown around _all_ the time. Not just here, but in RL, elsewhere on the internet, etc.




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 RPG as D&D.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2009)

Blizzardb said:


> I've actually never played WoW, but I've played quite a few WoW clones like Warhammer: Online and LOTRO. In my opinion, D&D 4E is no more similar to them than it is to any other computer RPG (a genre that D&D inspired in the first place). Also, it is no more similar to them than any of the older editions was.
> 
> I think the main reason people are making this comparison are the class roles and the MMORPG archetypes (tank, etc).




I find it a notable difference that in most games - including WoW the archetypes or roles are typically build options. The class is not designed for one role/archetype, but an individual character can be built to fulfill a particular role. I think that is actually the novel aspect of D&D 4, something that distinguishes it from something like WoW.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2009)

[D][/D]







Hereticus said:


> IIt is my opinion that range was limited by design so that all action could fit on a *game table or graph paper and that melee characters don't run around for several rounds.*



Seriously, modern games have features like "zooming". Little issues here... But it is very annoying if you can't fit the distances on your physical game table.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I find it a notable difference that in most games - including WoW the archetypes or roles are typically build options. The class is not designed for one role/archetype, but an individual character can be built to fulfill a particular role. I think that is actually the novel aspect of D&D 4, something that distinguishes it from something like WoW.




I'm confused, are you saying that 4E builds don't effect what roles a character can fill?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

1. All classes have lots of powers. 
2. All classes are simple to begin with, increasing in complexity as the game progresses. This is really a feature of good gaming, not just WoW, but crpgs may well have provided the inspiration.
3. Most class powers are combat related. I don't think this came from WoW though, hack and slash has always been the default mode of play in D&D.
4. Magic items can be disenchanted.
5. Magic items have levels.
6. Monsters have levels.
7. Phased monster fights, via the bloodied condition.
8. Elite and solo monsters. They're even called 'elite' in WoW. WoW lacks minions however.
9. Stickier tanks. Though the mechanism that provides the stickiness is unlike WoW's.
10. Rogues are deadly cuisinarts. Of course 4e and WoW both got this from the same source - 3e.
11. The names of the class roles. These are taken from City of Heroes. So videogame-y but not WoW. Roles themselves have always been in D&D. Duh, it's a class-based system.
12. Better class balance. I don't think 4e took this from WoW, it's just a feature all good games should have. 4e and WoW are both good games.
13. More interesting combat. Again, a feature of good games in general, not an idea stolen from WoW.
14. More monstrous looking PC races. This comes, not from WoW, but from modern fantasy. And has a long tradition in D&D going all the way back to Chainmail.

In some areas 4e resembles WoW less than previous editions -
1. Reduced Xmas tree.
2. Dedicated healer no longer required.
3. No more buffs.
4. Gnomes de-emphasised and non-tinker.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> 2. Many of the class powers carry with them a WoW-like mechanic: Cool down times. Perhaps it was not intentional on the part of Wizards, but it is there. Encounter powers can only be used once per encounter, and are replenished after 5 minutes of rest, thus giving these abilities a 5 minute cool down. Many powers in WoW are similar, being useful only in a single fight (unless you are in a BG, or something really long).



D&D has always sort of had cooldowns - Vancian magic.

The mechanism for WoW cooldowns is rather different from D&D encounter powers though. Cooldown times vary greatly, from 6 seconds to days, and there is no need to avoid combat for a time period, the cds regenerate no matter what you are doing. For instance a WoW power with a 5 min cd could potentially be used twice in a boss fight.

I definitely don't see encounter powers as a WoW-ism. WoW has no concept of the encounter.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I definitely don't see encounter powers as a WoW-ism. WoW has no concept of the encounter.




That's not quite true. WoW has several powers that cannot be used while "in combat." Some of those are intended to start combat (charge or ambush), and some of them are intended to reduce downtime between combats (eating or calling your mount).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> If you look hard enough, you can find similarities between two things that, while they have something in common, are not alike. "4e is just like Anime" because it has super-powered characters with wuxia named powers. "4e is just like Exalted" because there are effects that last all encounter/scene, and everyone has magical powers. "4e is just like M:tG" because of the symbols/colors, and the use of Cards (Power cards, quest cards). "4e is just like a boardgame" because it's so focused on square based movement. "4e is just like furries" because there are Dragonborn, which are anthropomorphic dragons with breasts. "4e is just like your mom" because (whatever).



Totally agree. You know some kind of criticism is being made, but the language is so vague it's hard to tell what. And if you go to the trouble of getting the guy to explain, 90% of the time it turns out he's just deeply confused. About everything.



> Back before the 4e books were out, one of the common messageboard criticism was that 4e looked so "anime". This spawned a big long thread where someone said, "So, where's the anime?" No solid examples were found, but the thread concluded it was just more a general feeling or impression without straight parallels.



I remember that thread, it was about 3e art wasn't it? Hussar is the hero of ENWorld.

By the way I actually found some anime (in the sense of Oriental influence) in a 4e product yesterday. It's on page 150 of Secrets of the Grave, a J-Horror inspired image of a Ring/Grudge style crawling female ghost with scary hair. It's the first I've found.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2009)

Well, I think there are a few statements that people assume are being made when someone says "4e is like WoW":

1. "4e is the SAME as Wow" (almost always accompanied by: "and that means 4e sux)

2. "4e is more like WoW than 3e" (which is definitely true in some ways, and is not true in others)

3. "4e has some elements in common with WoW" (and that may be a good or bad thing)

4. "4e drew upon some elements in WoW in order to find new, useful and popular ways of using powers/abilities/design."


There is no question. 4e designers DID draw upon their knowledge of WoW. The real question that seems to matter is whether or not that is a bad thing and whether or not they "overdid it". That is a matter of opinion, as with any other game design. WHERE an element of a game came from is really irrelevant. WHETHER it makes the game better or worse is what matters, and that can be both objective and subjective (good mathematical balance being more objective and whether it is fun being more subjective).


From:
Slashdot | The D&D Designers Answer Your Questions

*



D&D and WOW by halivar: 
It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?

WotC: 
Just as the design teams of most computer games draw on their experiences with Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games, we look to other games for inspiration and innovation. Many of us in RPG R&D play or have played MMOs and other computer games. Some of the lessons we learned about gameplay on those platforms have helped us craft a better tabletop RPG, both for current D&D players and for potential new players who either haven't yet tried D&D or haven't found previous iterations of the game to their liking.
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## malraux (Jun 20, 2009)

If I had to say what genre 4e drew the most from outside of PnP RPGs, I would point to CCGs/TCGs.  Powers are pretty equivalent to cards, end up being tapped to use, etc.  Heck, WotC even owns a CCG line that I hear is pretty popular.

On roles: I don't see this as a WoW thing as much as a general trend to metadata in everything.  Pretty clearly 4e could have been written almost identically excepting talk about roles, and the play experience would be almost identical.  The roles are labeled because they are pretty obvious.  This also helps groups have flexibility.  Now, instead of being locked into the class of cleric or fighter, you at least can pull from any of the leader or defender classes.  But all of this is an outgrowth of the design intent being more forthright, which is a trend almost everywhere.

Balance: 4e classes are not balanced against each other.  How do you balance marking vs extra damage?  As near as I can tell, 4e classes are only balanced against others within the same role.  But that's a good thing, and a logical game design goal.  Clearly having one class be signifcantly better at a role than another would be a bad thing.

Personally, I think the problem with the claims that DnD is derivative of WoW is this: it implies that the designers blindly copied stuff from WoW, regardless of the underlying merits of the choice.  Roles are actually a pretty decent design choice, regardless of who first came up with the idea.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> [D][/D]
> Seriously, modern games have features like "zooming". Little issues here... But it is very annoying if you can't fit the distances on your physical game table.




If you have your characters rub pepper in their eyes, then you won't have to worry about them seeing anything that "you can't fit the distances on your physical game table".

What can be seen is potentially part of any encounter. There are some very simple ways to deal with distances greater than what your map has.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 20, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> It comes down to what others have mentioned before. 4e READS like your typical guide for a videgame but ironically, I'm almost positive that the 4e designers mentioned they used the M:TG style guide for writing and M:TG is way older than most videogames people are familiar with.




Mearls loves Halo 2 according to a blog entry. He even discussed the Halo 2 damage system in his WOTC design test as seen in the following excerpt from a WOTC Design and Development article dated 0/7/2005 in which they shared Mike's design test answers

" 7. Describe a game mechanic (from a game other than a roleplaying game) that you think is good, and explain why you think it's good.

Mike Mearls: I love mechanics that emphasize the fun parts of a game while pushing the dull parts to the background. Halo 2's damage system removes the typical health meter found in first person shooters. Instead, each player has a shield that soaks damage. Once the shield is gone, additional shots damage a target based on where they hit. When the shields recharge, all body damage heals.

The time needed to recharge is long enough that you are unlikely to heal in the middle of a firefight, but it readies you for the next area of a map once you defeat your current foes. This emphasizes the fun parts of Halo – running around, blasting away at enemies – without forcing players to spend time in search of healing or power-ups. Such a search isn't necessarily fun, and it puts the game on hold until the player is in a good shape to continue.

In multiplayer games, this mechanic encourages good tactics. An ambush or clever use of terrain gives a big edge, since in most cases two opponents meet with full shields. If it takes 10 shots to defeat an opponent, whoever fires first, or whoever makes an opponent miss more often, gains a big advantage."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> If you have your characters rub pepper in their eyes



I prefer to LARP that.


----------



## hazel monday (Jun 20, 2009)

I've never played WOW more than once because I don't like it. It doesn't appeal to me.


I've never played 4.0 more than once because I don't like it. It doesn't appeal to me.


So in that sense, WOW is like 4.0.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

malraux said:


> On roles: I don't see this as a WoW thing as much as a general trend to metadata in everything.



4e sux. It's too XML-y.


----------



## Khairn (Jun 20, 2009)

Rather than specifically WOW, I do feel that a number of 4E game features have an MMORPG feel to it.  Which is only natural given some of the design goals of 4E and that MMO's are the most popular form of "fantasy" entertainment today.  Many of the most common similarities have already been brought up so I won't repeat them.  As Aberzanzorax said earlier, its not a question of "if" 4E was influenced by and has incorporated MMO elements in the rules. 


> The real question that seems to matter is whether or not that is a bad thing and whether or not they "overdid it".




I still remember my first time GM'ing 4E and the wizard in the party calling out "Hotkey #3!" everytime he used Magic Missle.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> "4e is just like your mom" because (whatever).




I disagree completely.  4E is coherent, consistent, and otherwise nothing like my mother.

But maybe your mother is totally different from mine.  IOW, not insane.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 20, 2009)

I can't answer from my own experience, having only watched some other people playing WOW and having played 4e for only four sessions (and then dropped it).

I have three friends who are heavily into WOW, one of whom is a table top gamer as well.  The table topper (who has played many MMORPGs due to rarely having close-at-hand game buddies) looked at 4e and compared the two prior to play; after playing it (with a different group than my own), his opinion was pretty much "If I want to play WoW, at least I want it in real time, not crawl time".  

The other two (WoWers only) have watched some of my groups rpgs, including our attempt at 4e.  One of them saw a lot of points of comparison; the other saw almost none.  

So survey says ... the jury is still out.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 20, 2009)

This thread shows, once again, what is wrong with most of these kinds of discussions. 

"Is 4E like WoW?" is not a "yes" or "no" question. It's really disingenuous to make those the only options on your poll, and then, when people say "yes", to try to prove to them they're wrong by describing all the ways you can think of in which WoW and 4E are different.

No one in their right mind is claiming that 4E and WoW are the same game. On the other hand, tons of people have read the rules or tried the game and found that, more than any other edition of D&D before, 4E reminds them of a MMORPG, and "Word of Warcraft" is just shorthand for that. Starting these nitpicky "4E is NOT WOW!" discussions is just a way to try to dismiss the actual argument at hand.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 20, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> *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.




IMO, this is more a example of modern game design priorities than an overt resemblance between 4e and WoW.  One example would be OWoD vs NWoD (Vampire).  In the older edition Celerity (super speed) granted extra actions, whereas in the new edition it increases defenses and movement speed (but does not grant extra actions).  The former is arguably a better simulation of super speed, but the latter is far more balanced (many people, myself included, considered old Celerity horribly broken).

Additionally, WoW puts serious importance upon class vs class balance (because a fair portion of the game is player vs player).  4e, on the other hand, focuses on balance within roles and with respect to the DM's side of the game (monsters, skill challenges, etc).  Both, games do hold balance as an item of importance, but the direction they approach that balance from is quite different.



> *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.




IMO, the reason behind this characteristic is essentially the same as the first (balance).  

In 3.x I saw a halfling ranger build (with dog animal companion mount) that had the DM pulling his hair out in frustration.  I don't remember exactly how he did it (some nasty combo of prestige class and feats I think) but he was able to put out a punishing amount of damage from an extreme distance (often retaining total cover).

In a similar vein, a wizard with the fly spell didn't even need much else to nuke an area from space.

Hence, it really comes back to balance (and fun).  As a DM, I really don't want to have to arm every primitive band of orcs with greatbows just to deal with an *EXTREME* ranged PC, nor do I want to have to set every adventure in a tiny dungeon just to "foil" them (neither fun for the DM nor the player).  I don't want the rest of the party standing around bored because the wizard decided that instead of a grand battle a fireball storm from orbit would do just as well.  Keeping ranges (relatively) short keeps ranged characters from becoming a "problem" and allows the DM to challenge these PCs with a lot less effort.

More power to you if this was never a problem for you, but it was definitely a problem for some.

There is definitely some surface resemblance between 4e and WoW, and I don't doubt that the 4e designers borrowed and adapted ideas from WoW.  However, as someone who played plenty of WoW and still plays 4e, they are two very distinct games.


----------



## avin (Jun 20, 2009)

Playing Wow since before AQ gates opened.

The only I compare to Wow is the power cooldowns. And maybe some art.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 20, 2009)

If you have your characters rub pepper in their eyes...



Doug McCrae said:


> I prefer to LARP that.




Hmmm, I may choose to have root canal instead.


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

I played 4E before I ever played WoW (by a few months).   Before playing WoW, I thought that 4E felt like a blend of miniatures gaming mixed with video game elements and some of the old traditional D&D tropes sprinkled on top.  Once I finally played WoW the connection with video games, and WoW in particular, was even more apparent.  Heck, some of my WoW character "powers" or "spells" felt like they had been lifted directly from 4E (although I realize that the connection actually ran the other way).


----------



## malraux (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> I played 4E before I ever played WoW (by a few months).   Before playing WoW, I thought that 4E felt like a blend of miniatures gaming mixed with video game elements and some of the old traditional D&D tropes sprinkled on top.  Once I finally played WoW the connection with video games, and WoW in particular, was even more apparent.  Heck, some of my WoW character "powers" or "spells" felt like they had been lifted directly from 4E (although I realize that the connection actually ran the other way).




For example?  Do hp, leveling, wearing armor, having classes with customizable options also feel like they were lifted directly?


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 20, 2009)

I think the biggest similarity is HOW they present the information.

For example, even though ToB is a percusor to 4e, few people equate ToB with WoW (anime, that's an entirely different thing)

The format of how manoeuvers are presented more closely matches that of the typical D&D presentation. Small listing of class abilities than the manoeuvers/spells are all combined for the various classes into one big section in the back of the book.

4e's layout _IS_ how "class" information is presented in your typical computer guide nowadays. All of that class abilities including class specific talents/perks are moved under the same heading even if the powers are shared by different classes.

re: 4e powers vs typical MMO talents
I would say the biggest difference is that many of the powers of the martial power source involve damage + discrete movement + condition whereas in a MMO, it is more damage + time + condition


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 20, 2009)

I've played WoW and think the similarities to D&D are superficial, at best. Also, if D&D were _really_ like WoW, table-top role playing wouldn't be a niche hobby.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> I'm confused, are you saying that 4E builds don't effect what roles a character can fill?




Classes in 4E have one (primary) role. (Of course most classes also have one or two secondary roles that depend on your build.)
Classes in WoW (AFAIK) have multiple roles they can fill, depending on how you build them.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Classes in WoW (AFAIK) have multiple roles they can fill, depending on how you build them.



To explain the above point more fully:

Shamans have three Builds. They can be a Melee Damage Dealer, a Ranged Damage Dealer, or a Healer. 
Druids have four builds. They can be a Tank, a Ranged Damage Dealer, a Melee Damage Dealer, or a Healer. 

AFAIK, you almost have to focus on one of those. You CAN pick up your abilities in all of those, but you'd basically suck at everything because you're spreading yourself so thin, and could do nothing well enough to survive. 

Whatever build you pick, that's what you do. That's all you do. You heal? That's all you do. You tank? That's all you do. 

There is no "Secondary role".


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 20, 2009)

To elaborate further:

In 4e, your role defines what you do best while your build focuses on how you do it.  A Fighter is a Defender regardless of whether he is 1 or 2H Weapon Talent, Tempest, or Battlerager.  Certainly some of these are a bit better at defense while others focus more on offense, but regardless of build a Fighter is an excellent defender.

In WoW, a Warrior (WoW's Fighter) has three talent trees.  Protection focuses on tanking (defender), Fury focuses on offense (striker), and Arms focuses on PvP (no analog in 4e).  (At least, that was what they did when I stopped playing; no idea what's changed since then.)  A Fury Warrior can put out close to Rogue damage, but he usually won't survive grabbing a boss' attention any better than a Rogue (both are pretty squishy).  Using a Fury Warrior to tank a boss is generally a last resort, and usually only works if the Fury Warrior is wearing full Prot gear (gear in WoW is of equal importance to Talents) and the party is over-geared/leveled.  Using a Fury Warrior in Fury gear to tank is almost certainly doomed to failure for any non-trivial encounter.

So while there is some similarity, in practice they are quite different.


----------



## malraux (Jun 20, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> In WoW, a Warrior (WoW's Fighter) has three talent trees.  Protection focuses on tanking (defender), Fury focuses on offense (striker), and Arms focuses on PvP (no analog in 4e).  (At least, that was what they did when I stopped playing; no idea what's changed since then.)  A Fury Warrior can put out close to Rogue damage, but he usually won't survive grabbing a boss' attention any better than a Rogue (both are pretty squishy).  Using a Fury Warrior to tank a boss is generally a last resort, and usually only works if the Fury Warrior is wearing full Prot gear (gear in WoW is of equal importance to Talents) and the party is over-geared/leveled.  Using a Fury Warrior in Fury gear to tank is almost certainly doomed to failure for any non-trivial encounter.




Hey, that sounds an awful lot like the 3e fighter.  In all seriousness though, its not like fantasy rpgs are pulling from wildly different source material.  So it shouldn't be all that surprising that similar solutions get used.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 20, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I've seen a lot of criticism of 4e. Some I think are valid, some aren't.
> 
> The one criticism that continues to baffle me is the comparison between 4e and World of Warcraft. I see it thrown around _all_ the time. Not just here, but in RL, elsewhere on the internet, etc.
> 
> ...



This is purely anecdotal, but I have seen the comparison coming mainly from people who are not into WoW (or MMORPGs, or the current computer-game scene at all) -- and also are not 3E devotees.

My impression is that in those cases it's the first analogy that comes to mind in trying to describe what the heck 4E is like, the fundamental point being that it is so very unlike "old school" D&D. The comparison is usually doubly naive, I think, for want of actual experience playing 4E, so taking it literally is probably to attribute more claim of precision than was intended in the first place.

The mere perception of difference from "how D&D was" is likely to depend a bit on how far back the referent goes. A lot that players of 3E (or even late 2E, perhaps) take for granted is strange to players of Basic+ or Advanced D&D -- and a lot of that has been carried forward into the latest version.


----------



## Andor (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't think 4e is particularly like WoW. It does however have many elements that remind me _heavily_ of console games like FFT or Disgaea. It also as many elements that are very 'computerish'. In particular the rulebook reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming. 

I think these two factors tend to get conflated into calling it 'videogamish' or 'WoW like".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

Andor said:


> I don't think 4e is particularly like WoW. It does however have many elements that remind me _heavily_ of console games like FFT or Disgaea. It also as many elements that are very 'computerish'. In particular the rulebook reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming.



Please explain.


----------



## conanb (Jun 20, 2009)

Andor said:


> I don't think 4e is particularly like WoW. It does however have many elements that remind me _heavily_ of console games like FFT or Disgaea. It also as many elements that are very 'computerish'. In particular the rulebook reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming.
> 
> I think these two factors tend to get conflated into calling it 'videogamish' or 'WoW like".




I'll have to agree wit this. 4th Edition has a distinct feel where combat versus non-combat are very distinct stages. What I am reminded of when we're playing D&D is a Final Fantasy game like FFVII or something like that. The group is running around until they hit an encounter and suddenly we jump to unit versus unit combat. 

The parallels I see with World of Warcraft have more to do with it's unique battles, use of terrain and what not in fights. I've played World of Warcraft and there are many things that do give it that flavor. The focus on magic item gear definitely has a feel of wow about it. But then again we were seeing this in the last few books of 3.5 and it's move towards "Armor Sets" and bonuses for having several themed magic items together.  

I think the use of "powers" also definitely feels like a videogame, either Wow or some other MMO, where you have several distinct types of attacks by character type. 

The whole thing seems very easy to translate to a video game and I look forward to the first D&D video game based off this new rules set. The game itself is still fun but it needs someway to integrate it's combat & non-combat states better. 

Just my two cents on the matter.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 20, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Funny!
> 
> No, like marking, healing surges, K3WL POW3RZZ for all classes, etc.
> 
> Like I said, their words, not mine.



This is a bit back in thread now, but...

I really don't see it. If anything, marking and healing surges are things that seem fairly unique to 4E. I have never seen anything quite like them anywhere else.

4E Marking, which lets you penalize an opponent who doesn't target your character, is simply unheard of outside of 4E. Just about every videogame that has defensive characters uses either some kind of active defense in which one character takes a blow for another (like the Final Fantasy "cover" ability), some kind of aggro/taunt mechanics that control what enemies target in the first place, some emphasize pure tactical positioning in order to protect weak characters (Fire Emblem does this very well), and many just rely on every character being tough enough that you can just use healing in order to keep everyone alive.

Similarly, I have certainly never seen anything like 4E Healing Surges, which mean that the amount of any given HP restoration ability is based on the target, rather than the healer's own capability, and that characters have a fixed number of times they can be healed per day. I mean, I have seen things somewhat like 4E's auto-restoration of HP at the end of every battle and effects like second wind, but I have never seen anything at all like healing surges. The closest example I can think of, the classic SaGa HP/LP system as seen in the PS2 game SaGa Frontier 2, still has more than enough differences for healing surges to remain as a distinct concept (that said, I actually think the SaGa system is far more elegant than 4E's HP and death systems).

As for the "Kewl Powers" thing... If that was inspired by certain videogames, then it was the best possible inspiration they could have taken. Of course, there are many videogames that _don't_ give everyone powers like that, and I consider the 4E at-will/encounter/daily power divide to be its own totally unique monster. In fact, I think more videogames could stand to emulate the way 4E implements at-will powers.


----------



## Zil (Jun 20, 2009)

malraux said:


> For example?  Do hp, leveling, wearing armor, having classes with customizable options also feel like they were lifted directly?



For example?  Breaking everything down into powers that you can put on a power bar (or meld if we want to think in terns of card games analogy).  Having magic tied more closely to level (i.e. low level people can't use magic from a higher tier).  My 4E wizard's thundering power sure felt a lot like my WoW warrior's thundering blast even though the effect was a little different.   In 4E (at least our games) you start to fall back on a routine of a using a certain set of powers repeatedly once you run out of daily/encounter powers.  WoW has a similar thing.  You have all these options, but really only a few of them are used all the time.   Monsters have effective cool down periods in both games.  WoW agro is simulated with the whole marking system.  There's lots of similarity.

I'm not saying 4E is "WoW the table top role playing game."  Rather, I'm saying it sure feels like they dipped into WoW for inspiration when they were building the game.  And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that - I am sure many people really like those influences.

I don't see why some people get all defensive over this particular question and pounce whenever someone posts that they find that 4E feels like WoW to them.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> I don't see why some people get all defensive over this particular question and pounce whenever someone posts that they find that 4E feels like WoW to them.




Well, I think it's because of the numerous people who declare that 4E is the worst thing ever since it's like WOW.  Yes, these people do exist, and they are annoying.

I was talking the other day with somebody about the free RPG Day and where to go to get stuff around here, and this other guy just declared he'd never go because there was two much 4E stuff on this list.  Can't talk about anything gaming related without him finding some way to jump in with his 4E bashing.

Me, I try to recognize that not everybody is like that, but I can see how some people might feel a little defensive if they've run into the equivalent themselves.  It's a tad unfair, perhaps, yet not unexpected.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 20, 2009)

FFT refers to Final Fantasy Tactics and it plays distinctly differently from regular Final Fantasy games.

(Even here, from FF XII go forward, it seems that Square-Enix is going to be real-time at least for the FF franchise. Kiss the "window-pane crash" goodbye)


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 20, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> FFT refers to Final Fantasy Tactics and it plays distinctly differently from regular Final Fantasy games.
> 
> (Even here, from FF XII go forward, it seems that Square-Enix is going to be real-time at least for the FF franchise. Kiss the "window-pane crash" goodbye)



You know, I have been a Final Fantasy fan since I was just a kid, but it took me quite a lot of pondering to even figure what you meant by "window-pane crash". Are you referring to the transition from the field screen to the battle screen when a random battle occurs? I've never heard that referred to as a "window-pane crash" before. Of course, my fondest memories are for the old SNES games, which is much more of a screen-pixelation/blur effect with that distinct sound...

At first, I thought you were talking about the pace of the battles themselves being real-time, especially with the comparison to the turn-based FFT. My initial reaction was "The series has used real-time battles since FF4. That isn't anything new...".


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 20, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> You know, I have been a Final Fantasy fan since I was just a kid, but it took me quite a lot of pondering to even figure what you meant by "window-pane crash". Are you referring to the transition from the field screen to the battle screen when a random battle occurs? I've never heard that referred to as a "window-pane crash" before. Of course, my fondest memories are for the old SNES games, which is much more of a screen-pixelation/blur effect with that distinct sound...
> 
> At first, I thought you were talking about the pace of the battles themselves being real-time, especially with the comparison to the turn-based FFT. My initial reaction was "The series has used real-time battles since FF4. That isn't anything new...".




Heh so many posters...

My reference to "window pane crash" was actually in reference to an earlier poster who said that 4e feels similar to Final Fantasy in that they feel a dsitinct difference when they transition from the on-screen exploration to the requisite random battle.

My point was that FFXIII and up, it seems like Square/Enix is not going to have the transition from exploration to fighting....

Games like Tactics and Disgaea I find play very differently than real time RPGs since positioning and movement plays a much larger role than the relatively static nature of RPGs where you basically have the monster facing one another and everyone simply starts wailing on each other...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2009)

conanb said:


> The focus on magic item gear definitely has a feel of wow about it. But then again we were seeing this in the last few books of 3.5 and it's move towards "Armor Sets" and bonuses for having several themed magic items together.



Good point about the armor sets, they are videogame-y. However 4e has fewer magic items than previous editions and it's easier to houserule all magic items away than in any other edition.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 20, 2009)

I find MMOs and computer game sin general feed back into D&D, and I learn a lot of ideas/realizations from them to put into D&D!

Playing real time, in a 3D environment you are immersed in, gives a hell of a lot of feedback and time pressure that a board and minis cannot.

I think D&D wised up and clarified things, by looking _at _computer games, learning things from them without getting priggish, accepting things, and working on them.
Only a twit wouldn't try to learn from what's been going on in the 30+ years since D&D's creation!
D&D is not holy writ, ya know, folks!! Much as I owe Gary Gygax and Dave Arnesen a huge debt...they were innovators, the first incarnation of anything is rarely ever perfect, as they haven't had time ot learn, to polish etc.

We went form Original, to AD&D, then to 2ned ed...then 3rd..then 4th. Earlier versions didn't have the internet and computer games to draw from, but they would have if they could have!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2009)

Andor said:


> In particular the rulebook reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming.



Interesting observation. I once discussed with a friend of mine about a 3.x character and monster generator, and we talked about the way how to represent all this object-orientated.

I always wondered if "Effects" in 3E could kinda be the superclass of a lot of "things" in D&D - e.g. damage, objects and creatures could also be classified as "effects", arguing that spells cause effects, and spells can deal damage, conjure an object or a creature and so on. Never thought it through to the end, though. I think it wouldn't have worked so great, since the system didn't start out that way. But it's possible that 4E - with a different background for some designers (I think some indeed in software development, but I am not sure ATM) - built this in from the start.


----------



## malraux (Jun 20, 2009)

Zil said:


> Having magic tied more closely to level (i.e. low level people can't use magic from a higher tier).  My 4E wizard's thundering power sure felt a lot like my WoW warrior's thundering blast even though the effect was a little different.   In 4E (at least our games) you start to fall back on a routine of a using a certain set of powers repeatedly once you run out of daily/encounter powers.



Yeah, 5th level spells are sooo 4e only [/snark]  Every edition of DnD has had magic tied very close to level.  Just as every edition has had repetitive use of some spells (magic missile being an excellent goto spell through ~10th level for example).



> I don't see why some people get all defensive over this particular question and pounce whenever someone posts that they find that 4E feels like WoW to them.




I tend to pounce because I find the arguments extremely weak in almost all cases.  Or the statements are so ephemeral as to actually be meaningless.


----------



## was (Jun 20, 2009)

While I've played WoW and noticed that they do have a few things in common, overall the two products dont seem that similar to me.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 20, 2009)

I really cannot see at all how magic items in any version of D&D are like WoW. In WoW magic items are of extreme importance yet at the same time are completely bland. They offer nothing more than a complex array of stats. The only exception is raid armor sets which are for that reason extremely popular since they can actually affect gameplay (and are not dictated by it). 4E magic items do provide some stats but those are programmed into the system and ultimately of secondary importance to item abilities many of which are active and improve or alter gameplay.

Also defending in 4E and WoW are very separate beasts with few things in common. Warcraft uses taunts that force attackers to focus on you, a threat system that translates rather directly to offensive rotations or FCFS systems of dps classes (maximize your tps), and very limited tactical movement since all characters are transparent as far as moving is concerned limiting tactical movement to facing for mobs with directional attacks and moving away from harmfull effects. The 4E threat management system is entirely different, based on dissuading attackers by making attacks more likely to hit the defender, a lot of tactical maneuvering and action denial, as well as retributive effects. Rarely will an effect in 4E actually force a monster to attack the defender with no choice. (What 4E could have borrowed from WoW is the elaborate system of mitigation and avoidance that tanks use to manage damage, but this is mainly a limitation of the d20 system and thus hard to surpass). 

The key observation in 4E design is how as Andor says it looks like something made by a programmer. Which I think directly translates into: 4E design focuses on logical and transparent processes. What frustrates me personally is where it deviates from this principle invariable causing balance issues (weapons as implements are an issues because of poor wording on feats and magic item properties intented for weapon powers but not limited to those).


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Classes in 4E have one (primary) role. (Of course most classes also have one or two secondary roles that depend on your build.)
> Classes in WoW (AFAIK) have multiple roles they can fill, depending on how you build them.




I see what you are trying to say then.



Rechan said:


> Whatever build you pick, that's what you do. That's all you do. You heal? That's all you do. You tank? That's all you do.
> 
> There is no "Secondary role".




That's mostly true, but at least now you have a button to swap between two different builds. This is also the reason I say city of Heroes/Villains resembles 4E. Their classes, which are defined by role archetypes, have an obvious primary and a variable secondary role. That and the "healer class" dosn't necessarily heal.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 20, 2009)

Andor said:


> It also as many elements that are very 'computerish'. In particular the rulebook reads like it was written by someone who just finished a class in object oriented programming.




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.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 21, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


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



*Divine Tiger's Potent Sublime Beef Panang* Iron Chef Attack 5


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 21, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> 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.



I can kind of see it.  I've done some recreational programming in an object oriented language.  For each item I had to program in the text adventure I was making, there was a sort of stat block.  And the sum total of the program, when it was written out in code, was essentially a long list of stat blocks.  These stat blocks were heavily laden with key words and references that referred you to other stat blocks.

So you might get something that looked kind of like (using an imaginary object oriented programming language):

TABLE
  object, takeable, hideunder, climbon
  lookDescription "Its a wooden table with a scratch."
  tasteDescription "Why are you tasting a table?
  listenDescription "Tables don't make noise."
  if HIT TABLE, then "The table smashes into splinters.", add SPLINTERS to KITCHEN;

And then things would continue with the next object. 

I can kind of see how power lists might feel that way, particularly in the way that reading a single object tells you very little about the overall function of the code, and you have to read them all and understand them in the context of one another to get a *feel* for what's going on.

Its not a strong analogy, but I can see it.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 21, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> FFT refers to Final Fantasy Tactics and it plays distinctly differently from regular Final Fantasy games.




Saying 4e is like FFT is a strong credit to 4e.  I loved that game.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 21, 2009)

Zil said:


> Having magic tied more closely to level (i.e. low level people can't use magic from a higher tier).



What?  There aren't any level prerequisites on gear in 4e.



Zil said:


> WoW agro is simulated with the whole marking system.



Giving a DM-controlled monster a penalty to hit is like using high-threat maneuvers (which would be what in D&D?) over and over so that other characters' actions don't top your threat level on a programmed monster's threat table?



Zil said:


> I don't see why some people get all defensive over this particular question and pounce whenever someone posts that they find that 4E feels like WoW to them.



Well, for one thing the people saying it seem to not have much knowledge about one or both games.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 21, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Well, for one thing the people saying it seem to not have much knowledge about one or both games.




THIS unfrotunately I think is always true in these discussions.

Example Cooldown is the same thing as an encounter power --- Er, not really. In BBEG fights/raids, you can actually get multiple chances to use your cooldown power whereas the encounter power is simply gone until you rest for 5 minutes after a fight.

Ex2: Aggro = Marking. As you pointed out Spatula, the emchanics are vastly different...


----------



## resistor (Jun 21, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D has always sort of had cooldowns - Vancian magic.
> 
> The mechanism for WoW cooldowns is rather different from D&D encounter powers though. Cooldown times vary greatly, from 6 seconds to days, and there is no need to avoid combat for a time period, the cds regenerate no matter what you are doing. For instance a WoW power with a 5 min cd could potentially be used twice in a boss fight.
> 
> I definitely don't see encounter powers as a WoW-ism. WoW has no concept of the encounter.




This is where I think a lot people disagree with each other.

To me, and I suspect to many others who think the comparison is valid, 4e's at-will, encounter, and daily powers seem very much like CRPG/MMO power cooldowns, and much more so than 3e did.

I'm not an expert on WoW, but having played a decent amount of Guild Wars in my time, I can say that it feels very similar.  You have your powers you can spam more or less all the time, your powers that you can pull off periodically in the fight, and powers that you can only pull off once in a fight, all achieved via cooldowns.  Obviously 4e scales it slightly differently (and for all I know, WoW might too), but it still seems very comparable to me.

The reasons I _don't_ think that the same can be said for 3e and earlier are twofold:

First, it didn't apply to every class.  Spellcasters had a cooldown mechanic via Vancian casting, but fighters and thieves didn't.  This is in contrast to CRPG/MMO practice where it's a defining characteristic of the entire combat system.

Second, there were no tiers of cooldown.  You cast your spell, and couldn't cast it again until the next day.  A defining feature of the MMO combat being discussed is that different powers have different cooldown times, which becomes an important tactical element.

Basically, while you're correct that 3e had some MMO-like cooldown aspects, I feel that 4e is MUCH more similar in that regard.  Not identical, but much more similar.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 21, 2009)

resistor said:


> This is where I think a lot people disagree with each other.
> 
> To me, and I suspect to many others who think the comparison is valid, 4e's at-will, encounter, and daily powers seem very much like CRPG/MMO power cooldowns, and much more so than 3e did.
> 
> ...




*Chuckle* I like this discussion.

But that's the thing resistor. As you alluded to, many other people are scratching their head when people equate encounter powers with cooldown. 

Encounter powers are HORRIBLE analogs for cooldown since as you pointed out, you can cast a cooldown power multiple times in a fight as long as the fight goes on.

If you have a cooldown of 5 minutes, and the raid last 30 minutes (definitely on the low side of BBEG in the high level areas), you're getting at least 5 castings of that power.

That same fight in D&D, you're only casting your encounter power ONCE and that's it. Hell, one of the complaints about 4e _IS_ the fact that encounter powers don't recharge in a fight a la ToB.

In a fight scenario, a 4e character really has only two options.
1. Pull off an attack they can do at will
2.
3. Pull off a once per fight manoeuver.

So how does this make encounter powers akin to cooldown?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 21, 2009)

I think the problem regarding "4e is WoW!" is that the statement was made first, and the defense for the statement later.  It as a common, if stupid, insult, but it wasn't until AFTER it was challenged that people suddenly had to show it.  That's why most of the "4e is WoW"-isms could just as easily apply to virtually any fantasy game ever created*.

*I know I mentioned this before, but...well, 'cept the Tiefling-Draenei thing.  They look mad similar, yo.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> re: Healing Surges
> 
> ...




This reminded me more of arcade combat games than CRPGs.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 21, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This reminded me more of arcade combat games than CRPGs.




Didnt all arcade games use the "healing potons drops from the sky/enemy/box" archtype?

True, last time I was in arcades was when Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting was the new thing so I may not be keeping up with you young whippersnappers


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2009)

I meant more the martial arts combat games, not the ones with guns.


----------



## resistor (Jun 21, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Encounter powers are HORRIBLE analogs for cooldown since as you pointed out, you can cast a cooldown power multiple times in a fight as long as the fight goes on.




I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

I've already offered two major ways in which 4e powers are much more like MMO cooldown than anything prior was (all classes are based on them, and their are different tiers of cooldown form an integral part of the tactics).

Your response is "But the exact scale of the cooldowns is different!"

Bologne.

You still have spam powers (at-wills), periodic powers (encounters), and rare powers (dailies).  The details are, of course, different, though I think a lot of that is because of differences of the format:

1)  Most MMOs run in real-time, so having powers that take a day to recharge would be impractical for all but the most extremely powerful powers, since you'd have to wait a day of real time between uses.

2) MMOs can also offer much greater granularity of cooldown times, since the computer is tracking it.  Though, IMO, powers continue to fall, generally, into a fast, medium, and slow breakdown.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 21, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think the problem regarding "4e is WoW!" is that the statement was made first, and the defense for the statement later.  It as a common, if stupid, insult, but it wasn't until AFTER it was challenged that people suddenly had to show it.  That's why most of the "4e is WoW"-isms could just as easily apply to virtually any fantasy game ever created*.
> 
> *I know I mentioned this before, but...well, 'cept the Tiefling-Draenei thing.  They look mad similar, yo.




Actually the problem is that people think WoW is a horrible, evil thing, instead of something that some people don't like.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 21, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> Actually the problem is that people think WoW is a horrible, evil thing, instead of something that some people don't like.




Wow IS a horrible, evil thing.  It is designed to trigger psychological addiction response.  This has NOTHING to do with WoWisms in D&D.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 21, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Wow IS a horrible, evil thing.  It is designed to trigger psychological addiction response.  This has NOTHING to do with WoWisms in D&D.



I agree with this statement.

I've lost too many friends to WoW.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 21, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Encounter powers are HORRIBLE analogs for cooldown since as you pointed out, you can cast a cooldown power multiple times in a fight as long as the fight goes on.




Actually, you have it backwards - really long WoW fights are HORRIBLE analogs for D&D combat encounters.

Fortunately, 99% of the combats a WoW character is going to be involved in are NOTHING like the massive affairs you need in order to recharge anything but the shortest timers.

And 4E does provide for abilities recharging within the encounter - it just doesn't allow the PCs to do that, but the mechanic is there... 

To be honest, though, I'm not being quite serious here. As Resistor points out, all these attempts to prove that since a PnP RPG and a MMORPG are not _exactly_ the same in many ways, hence there can possibly be NO comparison, are missing the forest for the trees. 

It's as if people don't get what "feels like" means. Or pretend they don't so they can argue about it.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 21, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> It's as if people don't get what "feels like" means. Or pretend they don't so they can argue about it.



It's as if people don't get what "is just like" means. or pretend they don't so they can argue about it.


----------



## Zil (Jun 21, 2009)

Spatula said:


> What?  There aren't any level prerequisites on gear in 4e.



Yes, you are certainly correct.  My bad there.  It's been too many months since we last played 4E and my memory of the treasure parceling guidelines turned out to be fuzzier than I would have liked.


> Giving a DM-controlled monster a penalty to hit is like using high-threat maneuvers (which would be what in D&D?) over and over so that other characters' actions don't top your threat level on a programmed monster's threat table?



I didn't say it was an identical system, but the mechanic attempts to achieve the same thing, i.e. draw off attacks to one person.  Also, I don't think this is necessarily a bad mechanic for the game.   I remember playing 1E games in the past (the much distant past now) and getting very annoyed with the DM deciding that all monsters would always attack the lower AC wizard and ignore all of the other players.  At least with 4E marking it gives the players a bit more control over the battlefield.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Rechan said:


> It's as if people don't get what "is just like" means. or pretend they don't so they can argue about it.




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.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 21, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> 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?


----------



## malraux (Jun 21, 2009)

resistor said:


> I'm not an expert on WoW, but having played a decent amount of Guild Wars in my time, I can say that it feels very similar.  You have your powers you can spam more or less all the time, your powers that you can pull off periodically in the fight, and powers that you can only pull off once in a fight, all achieved via cooldowns.  Obviously 4e scales it slightly differently (and for all I know, WoW might too), but it still seems very comparable to me.




Sounds a fair amount like the way monsters work.  But of course, people aren't using that to describe how DMing feels.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 21, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> 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 guess this is directed at me but I honestly don't see how cooldown is anything like Encounter type power.

Otherwise, one coul argue that any 1 per day power from D&D is analogus to a power with a cooldown of 24 hours.

In a fight with say a Boss battle, you don't think there is a big difference between the fact that the PCs in WoW can stagger their talents based on their respective CDs yet the 4e PCs cant and in fact, is actually considered a skill in knowing how to stagger CD powers?

The only similarity between cooldown powers and encounter powers is that every fight, assuming there is a 5 minute rest inbetween, the pc in both WoW and 4e start off with the same options. Whereas pre 3e, only the non-spellcasters started every fight fresh in terms of resources.

In terms of feeling, I have stated multiple times that the best comparison is to Strategy RPGS like Disgaea and FFT. Comparing 4e to WoW makes no sense since I play both WoW, Disgaea and 4e so why should MY "feelings" be discounted?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't think anyone here is saying "4e is nothing like WoW" in that sense (as in there is 0.0000% resemblance between the two).  

WoW is a fantasy MMORPG (yes, while it is far from common, you can occasionally find *good* RP in WoW, if you know where to look and have some luck) whereas 4e is a fantasy TTRPG.  The point being, they're both fantasy RPGs.  _Of course_ they are going to have similarities.  The point of debate, so to speak, is whether that resemblance is of any greater significance than the similarity WoW has to most other fantasy RPGs.

You can say that you feel 4e is very WoW-like because encounter powers feel like cooldowns to you.

I can say that I feel that that doesn't feel very WoW-ish to me because I feel that cooldown powers like dragon's breath (from earlier editions) feel to capture the cooldown concept much better _for me_.

This might well be colored by the fact that a friend of mine created a TTRPG last year that was mechanically very similar to WoW (complete with aggro "meters" and real cooldowns).  Unsurprisingly, it proved less than completely successful, though it wasn't entirely unfun to playtest.  I've experience with WoW, 4e, and even a TTRPG that tried to do what WoW does as WoW does it, and that no doubt affects my viewpoint.

When people talk about a "feeling" they're expressing an opinion, and while we can debate those opinions until we are all blue in the face, there's nothing to be gained by getting upset over not having changed someone else's opinion.  It's their opinion.  

YMMV


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 21, 2009)

Rechan said:


> What I think is interesting though is that, at the time of this posting, 22% of the voters _have_ played WoW, and think 4e is like WoW.




Question is really, how many of those 22% have actually played 4e? >< Considering some of the posts in this thread, I am starting to wonder.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Rechan said:


> 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?




Way to try to misdirect the discussion... again.

Sorry, but as can be clearly seen from the responses so far, no one really cares what someone said to you at your gaming table, when there's a somewhat broader issue at hand.

You decided to start a discussion about 4E and WoW _here_. So it'd be nice if you actually tried to have a conversation with the people _here_, rather than trying to dismiss every point of view that doesn't agree with yours by equating it to something stupid someone said to you during your game or in chat.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Question is really, how many of those 22% have actually played 4e? >< Considering some of the posts in this thread, I am starting to wonder.




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


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 21, 2009)

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).


----------



## Andor (Jun 21, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> 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.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 21, 2009)

I've just booted someone from the thread. Don't be tempted to make personal, adversarial attacks, folks.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> 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.






Rechan said:


> 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.



Hereticus said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 21, 2009)

Andor said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> Are you calling people liars? Watch out, Rehan doesn't like that kind of thing...




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 (Jun 21, 2009)

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 (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> 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).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 21, 2009)

Andor said:


> 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.



Subroutine? I thought they used this term only in Startrek these days. 

My object oriented programming language have stuff like methods, objects, classes, interfaces, properties, fields, attributes, indexes, arrays, generics and what-not, but no subroutines. 

Subroutine Passing is actually not exactly a primary technique in most OO languages, and it is more something done in functional languages. (though with some environments and programming languages, the definitions begin to blur.)

What is passed around are objects that have methods (or subroutines/functions in some languages). 

An OO approach would be to have a class called "Power". Keywords might describe interfaces it implements, like:

```
public class Tide of Iron implements Power, IMartial, IWeapon
{
  public void Resolve(IWeapon weapon, ICharacter usingChar, ICreature target)
  {
     int attack = Dice.Roll(20) + weapon.Attack + usingChar.Strength;
     if (attack >= target.AC) 
     {
         int damage = weapon.dice.roll() + char.Strength().
         target.InflictDamage(damage, DamageType.Untyped);
         Location x = Prompt.AskPushDirection(Localization.("Where do you 
                          want the target to move?", target, myPushConstraints), 
         target.PushTo(x);
     }
  }
}
```


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> 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.




You know how correct they are, and I believe you also know what the result of a debate with them would be. Are you familiar with the saying "winning an argument on the internet is like winning an event at..."?

Anyone who has been following what Rechan has been posting knows that he is a fan of 4.0E, and that he has seen alot of first-hand resentment to the game, mostly in the form of comparing it in a negative manner to WoW.

I know this because I was one of the people who made that comparison. I had not given 4.0E a fair evaluation, and I was not a video game player. So I used WoW (the most popular game) and linked the two together, because the parts of 4.0E I did not like seemed video gamish to me.

I jumped to a quick conclusion bashed two things I did not like with one statement.

I realize that their was error in that complaint, and have since apologized and tried to get more precise with the fewer criticisms I do have.


----------



## resistor (Jun 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Subroutine Passing is actually not exactly a primary technique in most OO languages, and it is more something done in functional languages. (though with some environments and programming languages, the definitions begin to blur.)




I don't think he meant passing subroutines as parameters (which would normally be called Higher-Order Functions),  but rather just the idea of having functions that take data parameters.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

> 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?






TwinBahamut said:


> 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.




Step #1) Please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is not a video game fan, and has maybe heard of WoW and two or three others that are advertised on TV. People like me do not know of the multitude of diverse games out there, so let's please try to communicate on a common level.

In the same respect, when taking about RPGs, let's talk about D&D only. I'm sure that there are another "multitude of diverse games out there", but let's keep it simple.



TwinBahamut said:


> 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.




Thank you, you have just agreed with me!

More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.

So as table top RPGs are designed to be closer to the new generally accepted definition as marketable fun, they are getting closer to what video games are.

I have no problem with Hasbro/WotC redesigning a game to be as popular as possible by selling what will be seen as fun to the most people possible.

But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> 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?




Define video game.   ET for the 2600 was a video game.   And no, 4E is not a poorly put together exercise in mindless tedium that frustrated thousands into tears.  I also don't think it caused the producing company to bury truckloads of the product either.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jun 21, 2009)

Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point.  We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games.  Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jun 21, 2009)

I'll add that I play WoW and love it.  I just don't like mixing my two hobbies to the point where the lines are beyond blurred.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 21, 2009)

tylerthehobo said:


> Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point.  We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games.  Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.




Ok, why?  And what solution would you suggest?  Would you prefer that 4E feature some way for all classes to fill each different role, or just allow a number of other roles?   What problems do you think that might cause?

And before I forget, how would you say the situation was different in prior editions?


----------



## malraux (Jun 21, 2009)

tylerthehobo said:


> Re: controller, tank, etc - that's just the point.  We've gotten away from roleplaying and into imitating our favorite video games.  Archetypes are one thing, but defining roles so that Leaders are always certain classes like Warlord, but never a Wizard, is bunk.




But isn't that something that WoW doesn't do?  Unless you are talking about City of Heroes, but it seems odd to arbitrarily say that DnD cannot every have a mechanic that was used in a video game ever.

Beyond which why is it bunk that classes are assigned a role?  Not assigning roles can certainly lead to problems with classes that can cover many roles at once while others can have at most 1 (or even none).  It's certainly gamist to have niche protection, but not just video gamist, virtually all modern games try to have some sort of niche protection.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't really think Warcraft actually has the four roles. Sure you have defenders and strikers but you don't have leaders but rather healers (healing specs in WoW don't do much other than leading and they have precious few unique buffs to offer other than healing throughput), and control is rather limited (almost all strikers can debuff to a similar degree and actual control elements are limited and secondary to your striker role).


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Define video game. ET for the 2600 was a video game.




Start with WoW, which seems to be the most popular one.

It also seems to be the one demonized most by players who do not care for the new edition.

Regarding "ET for the 2600", I have not yet seem anyone compare 4.0E to it... but I could be wrong.

In fact, your post was the first mention of it I have ever seen.



Bumbles said:


> And no, 4E is not a poorly put together exercise in mindless tedium that frustrated thousands into tears.




I do not think that either, and I am glad I did not see anyone else say anything that.

Have you?



Bumbles said:


> I also don't think it caused the producing company to bury truckloads of the product either.




Darn, I would like to know where they dumped it.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Ok, why? And what solution would you suggest?  Would you prefer that 4E feature some way for all classes to fill each different role, or just allow a number of other roles? What problems do you think that might cause?




In my opinion, 4.0E handles the situation very well, by encouraging role playing by the players.

My Wizard has even functioned as a leader.

No, he can't inspire or heal, but he can lead.



Bumbles said:


> And before I forget, how would you say the situation was different in prior editions?




No, they had role playing also.


----------



## tmatk (Jun 21, 2009)

WoW is the most popular RPG on the planet by a long shot; heck I think it's the most popular _anything_. Wouldn't any game designer be a fool not to take some ideas from it?


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> Start with WoW, which seems to be the most popular one.




I'd say I'm a bit miffed by how you moved the goal posts on me, but I'm not, I'm actually miffed at how you didn't acknowledge that the question you asked was way too ambiguous to answer.   Sorry, but "video game" is something you're going to have to define, or others will, and their definitions will come up so many different ways that it's kind of pointless to ask.

Best to avoid that problem in the first place.



> In fact, your post was the first mention of it I have ever seen.




For shame!  Your ignorance will be your downfall!  You must learn the history!



> I do not think that either, and I am glad I did not see anyone else say anything that.
> 
> Have you?




Sadly, yes.  I usually take it as a sign to ignore them though, since they're usually full of hot air.



> Darn, I would like to know where they dumped it.




Alamogordowas the site of the ET dumping.   No, you don't want to bother looking for copies.  If you want to play it, there are far easier ways.



Hereticus said:


> In my opinion, 4.0E handles the situation very well, by encouraging role playing by the players.
> 
> My Wizard has even functioned as a leader.
> 
> ...




I respect that you're trying to answer the questions I asked, but they weren't general ones, but specific ones to somebody else, and so your responses aren't exactly helpful.   Sometimes you can respond for somebody, I know I have, but I don't think it really worked so much in this case.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

tmatk said:


> WoW is the most popular RPG on the planet by a long shot; heck I think it's the most popular _anything_. Wouldn't any game designer be a fool not to take some ideas from it?




Of course not, but we were not discussing the financial impact of the decision.

The topic seems to be... from the perspective of a player, do you like the new direction of D&D?

In recently joining a 3.5 game, I missed my at-will attack spells and cantrips.

However Silent Illusion and Rope Trick save the entire party from certain death a few times, and Expeditious Retreat saved my butt (Longstrider saved the Cleric).

The perfect game would've saved all the good stuff from 3.5 and added it to all the good stuff added to 4.0.

However this is an imperfect world... so I do my best to survive with what I have.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'd say I'm a bit miffed by how you moved the goal posts on me, but I'm not, I'm actually miffed at how you didn't acknowledge that the question you asked was way too ambiguous to answer. Sorry, but "video game" is something you're going to have to define, or others will, and their definitions will come up so many different ways that it's kind of pointless to ask.




I believe that I have been fairly consistent in generalizing all video games under the demonized term WoW, and in stating that I have no experience with video games. Realizing that those that are not video game players probably have very little exposure to those games on the whole, it would be logical to keep the questioning to only the most popular and well known games.



Bumbles said:


> I respect that you're trying to answer the questions I asked, but they weren't general ones, but specific ones to somebody else, and so your responses aren't exactly helpful. Sometimes you can respond for somebody, I know I have, but I don't think it really worked so much in this case.




The terms Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller have game-specific meanings, based on the combat role of the character. The classes were designed in a specific way, and that is what they do best. An AD&D Thief would not make a good Tank, and a 4.0 Wizard would not make a good Defender or Leader. However he could lead, defend or strike.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> I believe that I have been fairly consistent in generalizing all video games under the demonized term WoW, and in stating that I have no experience with video games.




Which makes your decision to try to frame things in those terms all the more bewildering.  What does a video game feel like to you?  Me?  I know there are way too many different video games with way too many different feels for that question to be meaningful.  Even the same game can be looked at in different ways by different people.  I know this is true of WOW, for example.  

So I gave you an example of a video game, and I really don't see how 4E feels like ET for the Atari 2600.  To somebody else, well, it might feel that way.  And heck, there may be some deluded soul out there who thinks it's the pinnacle of game design.

Poor thing.   



> The terms Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller have game-specific meanings, based on the combat role of the character. The classes were designed in a specific way, and that is what they do best. An AD&D Thief would not make a good Tank, and a 4.0 Wizard would not make a good Defender or Leader. However he could lead, defend or strike.




Again, you're really no closer to addressing the questions I asked than you were in the first place.  Since you didn't even posit an opinion on what I was responding to, I'm not even sure what your answers mean.  Maybe you should just leave it be, and let the person I originally asked answer or not.  I think it'd be less confusing.


----------



## Iron Sky (Jun 21, 2009)

I've played a bit of wow, enough to get an 80, a 70, random alts in the various 10s of digits.  Mechanically, there are similarities to wow, mainly in that they tried to balance the classes so they are all roughly comparable to each other at the same level and in the class/role delineation.

I'm totally burned out on WoW and have no real desire to play it again, but that doesn't change my opinion of 4e since PnP RPGs are so different from MMOs that there's no comparison in my book.  Nothing like being "just another greatest hero in the world."

I think the changes between 3.5 and 4.0 were for the better; I'm enjoying playing and DMing 4e far more than I was 3.5, even at higher level - no, especially at higher level.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Which makes your decision to try to frame things in those terms all the more bewildering.
> 
> Poor thing.
> 
> Again, you're really no closer to addressing the questions I asked than you were in the first place.




OK, you win.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 21, 2009)

Iron Sky said:


> I've played a bit of wow, enough to get an 80, a 70, random alts in the various 10s of digits.




Wow, I have absolutely no idea what this means...



Iron Sky said:


> Mechanically, there are similarities to wow, mainly in that they tried to balance the classes so they are all roughly comparable to each other at the same level and in the class/role delineation.




Which agrees with my first point, on the drive for balance.

Both good and bad... and different.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 21, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> OK, you win.




What's winning?   I wasn't even aware it was a contest.



> Wow, I have absolutely no idea what this means...




Means Iron Sky has gotten one character to max level, another to the old max, and played the others to some extent.  Which doesn't quite tell us everything, but at least hopefully shows some familiarity with the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 22, 2009)

As I wrote earlier, I have seen the comparison made mainly by people with little interest in (and hence little knowledge of) 4E or WoW. I really do not think it is meant literally, but stems from such a reaction as Hereticus has described.

I'm not claiming that this is any more than anecdotal experience. I think I can see, though, some hints as to how the response arose at least in those cases.

The roll-out -- with "4dventure" ("Wasn't that a Chevy?") and "D&D Sizzle" ("Who exactly is that YouTube video supposed to appeal to?" "Francophiles with laptops, I guess.") -- did not help.

Cue Magic: the Gathering, Pokemon, Everquest, and WoW references like Pavlov inducing dogs to salivate. "Trying to compete head-to-head with World of Warcraft is stupid for Wizards of the Coast." But what was the basis of the assumption that WotC was doing so? Was it just a joke that outlived the punchline?

The semi-joke goes back to 3E, which to the traditionalists was already edging into _Rifts_ and _SenZar_ territory. No, those are not (as far as I know) computer games. But they do deal in bigger numbers than AD&D, and so does 3E (as an orc with an ax quickly demonstrated), and so do some computer games. Some folks, especially of a certain age, tend to find that sort of thing funny. It may have to do with long association with the phrase "Dungeons and Beavers".

So, along comes this new game with even bigger numbers, "healing surges", wizards casting Magic Missile (or Ray of Frost, etc.) at will, even more wuxia/ shonen / something-sounding jargon, and ... *lots of buzz about great new online features.* "So, will the 4E PHB come with controllers, or will they be sold separately?"

As far as I can tell, this was all a priori and ad hominem. It Came From Wizards, and so did 3E -- and many of the same folks had been saying similar things about that.

It's not that they actually knew much about anime, MMORPGs, or 4E. The common element was that they did not _want_ to get acquainted with any of those.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 22, 2009)

The definition of "roles" by (abstract game) combat function seems to be one thing that rubs some people the wrong way. I suspect it's also one of the things some fellows who are avid players of such things meant when they told me that the game was easier to grasp with experience in some computer games.

Jargon can be simply confusing sometimes -- as in the first time I encountered the video-gamer usage of "mob".  I reckon it can also be off-putting, especially to people predisposed to be put off.


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm replying before reading all of the other replies.  I have played both WOW and 4E and although I can feel some thematic or organizational similarities I think that they can be written off as just the evolution of gaming.  Basically D&D and videogames are symbiotic, feeding off of each other since the beginning.  Similarities are going to occur, since they share a contextual ancestor.  As for the manuals, they did feel a bit videogamey to me, but I felt more Advanced Squad Leader.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 22, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> Step #1) Please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is not a video game fan, and has maybe heard of WoW and two or three others that are advertised on TV. People like me do not know of the multitude of diverse games out there, so let's please try to communicate on a common level.



Fine then. We'll talk about three of the most popular and widely known videogames in the history of the medium: Pong, Pac-Man, and Tetris. I would be _very_ surprised if you haven't heard of at least two of those.

Does 4E more closely resemble Pong, Pac-Man, or Tetris than 3E does?

Honestly, I think such a question is almost ridiculous beyond comprehension, but it is nonetheless part of the question _you_ were asking. If you are talking about videogames as a whole, even limiting the discussion to the most well-known videogames any non-fan would know of, then your question is simply too broad to be meaningful.


Admin here, breaking into the post to point out that your post comes across as subtly insulting and condescending. We've talked, so I know that wasn't your intent, but everyone -- before hitting Submit, please read over your post to make sure you are actually communicating what you want to say. If you've written something that may be construed as disparaging, consider taking a second to revise it. Thanks. 

Finally, again for everyone, please try to give other members the benefit of the doubt.

Feel free to PM me with questions. ~ Piratecat





> In the same respect, when taking about RPGs, let's talk about D&D only. I'm sure that there are another "multitude of diverse games out there", but let's keep it simple.



I _was_ just sticking to talking about D&D...



> Thank you, you have just agreed with me!
> 
> More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.
> 
> So as table top RPGs are designed to be closer to the new generally accepted definition as marketable fun, they are getting closer to what video games are.



Your belief that I am agreeing with you is based on a false assumption on your part.

What I meant, but you failed to notice, was that D&D is not the only thing driven by these changing beliefs about what is fun and what makes a good game. If anything, the history of videogames reveals these changes more than a comparison of different editions of D&D would. To a certain extent, older videogames made in the 80's tend to more closely resemble certain assumptions and ideas seen in older versions of D&D, and both old videogames and old versions of D&D have similar ideas of what "fun" means. Meanwhile, newer videogames tend to have design principles and assumptions that more closely resemble the ideas of "fun" that are presented in 4E. I think you might find it helpful to keep in mind that videogame fandom has just as much of a "retro" movement as D&D fandom does. Both are evolving concurrently for the same reasons, it is not a matter of one simply taking ideas from the other.

If you want, I can be a bit more verbose about how the differences between early videogames and modern videogames closely parallel the differences between older versions of D&D and 4E.

I guess to put it all another way... The reason that I dislike your question so much is because it implies that videogames are a massive, unchanging thing, and that decades of change, dozens of genres, hundreds of popular, long-running series, and countless different ideas can all be summed up with a simple comparison. It simply doesn't work that way.



> I have no problem with Hasbro/WotC redesigning a game to be as popular as possible by selling what will be seen as fun to the most people possible.
> 
> But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?



I can perfectly understand that you don't like your favorite game being taken in another direction. I don't have to agree that videogames are responsible for this change in direction. If you don't like the change, just say you don't like the change, don't try to find some cause for the change that can be used as a scapegoat.

But, to turn this around and bring it back to the point I made above...

I am a longtime fan of the Final Fantasy series of videogames. I will continue to support that series for a long time to come. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the series has radically changed across recent years. They are currently working on Final Fantasy XIII, but my favorite iteration of the series was Final Fantasy V, made way back in 1992. Just as D&D is changing, so is my favorite series of videogames, and just as some people don't like the changes in recent versions of D&D, I don't like the changes in recent versions of Final Fantasy.

Actually, unlike with D&D, the changes to the Final Fantasy series _can_ be blamed on MMORPG ideas, since Final Fantasy XI _is_ an MMORPG...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Well, I think what 4E could use, and I am making for my games, is a questionaire about your character'&s "fluff". Parents, where grew up, skills and abilities outside combat, etc, things that are not covered inteh Character builder or the rulebooks.

If you want to personalize your WOW character, it needs to be much the same, as both appear fully grown out of nothing when you start the game. Not a dig on either system, but how it is. FLuff has to be built jsut like rules crunch, but it is something htat is easy to do.,

One thing I have noticed that is similar between 4E and WOW is people trying to shove the "best build" down everyone's throat. If you have class XXX then you need item YYY and starting stats of ZZ and so on. Stuff like that really drives away the fluff of the game, in addition to being directly insulting to everyone who asks for advice on making a character, especially people who have some interest in roleplaying the character. 

There are certainly peopole around who try their hardest to make 4E into a computer game, but I don't think it really is, 4E still has far more roleplaying ptential than any online computer game ever will. However, I think 4E ahs less rolleplaying potential than older versions because it has taken a lot of the full out of the crunch.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Post removed by admin. If you think there's a problem with a post, please report it instead of insulting the person back. Thanks. ~ Piratecat


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 22, 2009)

Never mind it was nothing constructive


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I think what 4E could use, and I am making for my games, is a questionaire about your character'&s "fluff". Parents, where grew up, skills and abilities outside combat, etc, things that are not covered inteh Character builder or the rulebooks.




Well, while I appreciate the idea, I'd note that that kind of thing, in my experience, is less about the system used to play the game, and more about the setting.

Not that I don't see the value for such things, but I'd prefer they not be in the rule books as it were.  Though of course, they can easily be put online, and I'd very much welcome that.  Then again, there's room for everything online, so that's not much of an endorsement.  Still, I don't feel a need to repeat the Unearthed Arcana's social class thing.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2009)

When people say 4e is more videogame-y than 3e I assume they mean Donkey Kong and I'm like "What the hell are you talking about? 3e has rules for apes (MM pg268) and 4e doesn't*!!!"

I am excellent at arguing on the internet.


*Unless they are in MM2 or something, I've not read it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Arguing in this fashion is jsut plain wrong.



No it isn't!!!


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> When people say 4e is more videogame-y than 3e I assume they mean Donkey Kong and I'm like "What the hell are you talking about? 3e has rules for apes (MM pg268) and 4e doesn't*!!!"



Yes it does.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--szrOHtR6U]YouTube - Monkey[/ame]



> I am excellent at arguing on the internet.



So am I.

Okay, hijack is over.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> There are certainly peopole around who try their hardest to make 4E into a computer game, but I don't think it really is, 4E still has far more roleplaying ptential than any online computer game ever will. However, I think 4E ahs less rolleplaying potential than older versions because it has taken a lot of the full out of the crunch.




Keep in mind that for some people (myself included) this lack of fluff is rather liberating.  Instead of having to limit myself to WotC's fluff, I have free reign to make up lots of fluff on my own (assuming the DM allows it).  I understand that that isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I certainly disagree that it implies less roleplay potential.  Possibly less roleplay potential for some, but more for others.

(For example, I recently created a pseudo-pacifistic dwarven cleric of the Suns whose radiant attacks are "soothing beams of light from the heavens".  Being a sort-of "shamanistic" priest, he follows the suns' example of not personally engaging in direct violence.  He literally calms his enemies until they fall into the deep sleep of unconsciousness, without causing them wounds or pain.  I can finally play a pacifist without worrying that my role play is dragging down the rest of the party.)


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Keep in mind that for some people (myself included) this lack of fluff is rather liberating.  Instead of having to limit myself to WotC's fluff, I have free reign to make up lots of fluff on my own (assuming the DM allows it).  I understand that that isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I certainly disagree that it implies less roleplay potential.  Possibly less roleplay potential for some, but more for others.




Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was talking about the ruleset. In 4E, I would argue there is far less roleplaying potential in the ruleset.

Outside of the ruleset, I would tend to agree, and to see my ideas on this, see the "What I want from 3PP in 4E" (or such a name) thread. 

My main problem with lack of fluff in the ruleset, is that new players might think that 4E is not supposed to have fluff. And if they assume so, then yes, 4E is really a lot like WOW. Looking at the points of light idea, there is no fluff there at all. Scazttered villages, or even larger places, but what, where, why, how, and so on? Nothing. Racial groups with no backstory, except a few hints. 

I can also make fluff myself, and anjoy doing so. And I agree with Fanaelialae that it is attradctive to me, but I ahve been playing various versions of D&D for thirty years, so I am not what I am worried about, which is a new gamer, especially one moving over from video games to tabletop RPGs.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 22, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> (For example, I recently created a pseudo-pacifistic dwarven cleric of the Suns whose radiant attacks are "soothing beams of light from the heavens".  Being a sort-of "shamanistic" priest, he follows the suns' example of not personally engaging in direct violence.  He literally calms his enemies until they fall into the deep sleep of unconsciousness, without causing them wounds or pain.  I can finally play a pacifist without worrying that my role play is dragging down the rest of the party.)





Well to be fair D&D cleric's are based off the militant holy orders of the crusades. So playing a pacifist was never really part of that class. I myself hate they way d&d has made them into everyman of the clergy which is something they really are not meant to be but rather the warriors of the church more then the preachers


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2009)

What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.

Take the rays of calming light. (I hate myself for what I type next, and I intend no snark). Why couldn't you do that in 3e?

I mean, I do get that you "overlap" with certain other things (like there are actually spells that do calm people down specifically). But why couldn't you re-fluff in 3e just like here?

Radiant powers do damage. There is that basic standard in the game. You've essentially "gone against" existing fluff by saying that the damage isn't really damage. That's fine, and more power to you. But, it's really not much different than doing the same in 3e, I'd say.


I still have yet to hear/read an explanation of why having no fluff is better than having fluff...fluff you can change.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was talking about the ruleset. In 4E, I would argue there is far less roleplaying potential in the ruleset.




Ok, could you contrast that with examples of roleplaying potential in the ruleset of prior editions?   Perhaps that would help make things more clear?



> My main problem with lack of fluff in the ruleset, is that new players might think that 4E is not supposed to have fluff. And if they assume so, then yes, 4E is really a lot like WOW. Looking at the points of light idea, there is no fluff there at all. Scazttered villages, or even larger places, but what, where, why, how, and so on? Nothing. Racial groups with no backstory, except a few hints.




The Points of Light was intended to be generic, so DM's could come up with that backstory themselves.  Therefore, I wonder why you call it shallow when it was intended to be shallow, and when I would say that any depth would be contradictory to its intended purpose.  

Not to mention, I wonder if you noticed the empires of the Dragonborn and Tiefling.  I find their inclusion to be distasteful myself, but they do exist.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 22, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> I _was_ just sticking to talking about D&D...
> 
> Your belief that I am agreeing with you is based on a false assumption on your part.
> 
> ...




Exactly. 

Videogame designers and their fans seem more willing to say "ok, is this feature fun for the players? Nope? Then how can we change it so that it is fun"

Like I mentioned earlier, Halo:Combat Evolved BECAME one of the most successful entertainment franchises ever by chucking the accepted feature of previous First Person Shooters when they went with the regenerative shields.

And yeah, even the videogame movement has a retro movement Megaman 9 is the newest entry in a much loved videogame series that started in 1987. Capcom purposely designed this game to the aesthetics that the fans associate with older games. Capcom even marketed it as an old-school game

_"Please have fun playing_ Mega Man 9, _and when you inevitably ponder why this game is so freaking hard, please remember that Inafune-san has a decanter on his desk full of broken gamer spirits that keeps him perpetually youthful."_  — Press release for _Mega Man 9

EDIT_: The 4e PHB DOES ask the players to think about their character and their history. I'm not sure why people ignore this bit of roleplaying advice when they talk about the 4e PHB and whether or not it is conducive to roleplaying.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.




For me, it depends on the Fluff.  One of the most annoying pieces of Fluff for me is from the 2nd Edition PHB.  Elves didn't die, but did the Tolkien thing.  Is this bad?   Not in any objective sense, but I just do not like it.  Not at all.

I have similar feelings about the 4E Dragonborn and Tiefling with their mention of their ancient empires.  And I honestly don't like how 3E had the Greyhawk Pantheon in it.

Chalk it up to pure personal preference to not see it in the core books though.  I do not pretend it's consistent or reflective of anything except what irks me.

I do have no objection to the descriptions of characters to be found in the 4E PHB though.  Those are ok.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I am not what I am worried about, which is a new gamer, especially one moving over from video games to tabletop RPGs.



Points of Light is supposed to make it easier for DMs to get started quickly, particularly beginners. The core rules of D&D should not be putting barriers in the way of new DMs. They shouldn't be suggesting a DM has to create a world before they can start running D&D.

If someone wants a bigger world then there's plenty of setting books and fantasy fiction available for inspiration.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 22, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> Step #1) Please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is not a video game fan, and has maybe heard of WoW and two or three others that are advertised on TV. People like me do not know of the multitude of diverse games out there, so let's please try to communicate on a common level.
> 
> In the same respect, when taking about RPGs, let's talk about D&D only. I'm sure that there are another "multitude of diverse games out there", but let's keep it simple.
> 
> ...



That's not what TwinBahamut was saying at all.  He said the common conception of "fun" was evolving with time.  You somehow took that and bent it into meaning that video games are driving that evolution, a statement that I don't think can be supported.  Especially by someone who self-describes as knowing absolutely nothing about video games.

If anything, CRPGs (at least American ones, which are distinct from Japanese CRPGs) are driven by the evolutions in tabletop games, probably because a lot of the people making those games are usually huge tabletop gamers.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> For me, it depends on the Fluff. One of the most annoying pieces of Fluff for me is from the 2nd Edition PHB. Elves didn't die, but did the Tolkien thing. Is this bad? Not in any objective sense, but I just do not like it. Not at all.
> 
> I have similar feelings about the 4E Dragonborn and Tiefling with their mention of their ancient empires. And I honestly don't like how 3E had the Greyhawk Pantheon in it.
> 
> ...




I'm with you on those examples. In my game I changed those things (we ignore the dragonborn and tiefling stuff and the elves just aged, but much slower).

I guess what I'm saying is that there is bound to be fluff you hate and fluff you like. There are also, at least in my games, rules I like (most of them) and rules I hate (which if I am DM I usually ban, unless the player really wants it and it wouldn't ruin others fun).


To me, I guess saying "I'm glad there's no fluff, so I can make my own, just how I like it." is tantamount to saying "I'm glad there's no rules, so I can make my own, just how I like it."

Imagine a "crunchless book" rpg released with a "make your own rules" along, perhaps with a few guidelines in the Game Master's Guide for how to make the kind of rules you like.

Maybe that's even a good idea. Maybe it isn't. But to me, the fluff and crunch are married, and both are necessary for a complete game. Any given rule or fluff point can be changed, but to not include them you are sacrificing something major.

That's my standpoint anyway, and perhaps a bit more of a window on how I just don't get why it's better to have "no fluff' instead of "fluff I can change".


----------



## Spatula (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> One thing I have noticed that is similar between 4E and WOW is people trying to shove the "best build" down everyone's throat. If you have class XXX then you need item YYY and starting stats of ZZ and so on. Stuff like that really drives away the fluff of the game, in addition to being directly insulting to everyone who asks for advice on making a character, especially people who have some interest in roleplaying the character.



You never visited the CharOp boards in the 3e days, I take it.  "Best build" is a concept that goes hand-in-hand with a multitude of build options.  There was a lot of the same attitude in the 3e days, and probably in the Skills & Powers era as well (although it wouldn't have been as visible, if it existed, since internet access wasn't as common as it is now).  It certainly exists even in older D&D, it's just a lot simpler because of the lack of character customization options.  Frex, "best 1e paladin build": get a holy avenger, magic (field) plate armor, a girdle of storm giant strength, and something that lets you fly.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jun 22, 2009)

_In response to the responses to my post earlier about how the defined roles damage the ability for players to actually role play characters:

_

I think by making the characters fit into niches in the party explicitly (leader, controller, etc.), it damages the ability for a player to roleplay their role.  (Can't tell you how many times a new player at a table in the shop where I run games has said "I'd like to be X," and some other player holds forth about how we've already got too many controller types, etc., when it was just a kid wanting to play at being Gandalf or something...)  Party balance (we can't all be clerics...) is one thing, but by over strategizing party structure, we're removing the chance that maybe that Wizard wouldn't be a controller type - maybe they'd be the tank with the fireballs, or an elderly sage who avoids combat and is studying runes during the fray, trying to find the way through the dungeon.  Defining ones own character is what makes the game fun for many.  Walking into a formula - one more formulaic than 3.5e's splat books or 2e's Kits - is going to hurt the play of the game as a roleplaying game.  Those variant kits and splat books, mocked as they may have been by some in the hobby, actually opened more doors for variations on classes, rather than trying to shoe horn all players of a particular class into a singular, specific role.

Defined roles in a MMORPG are one thing, where for solving computer-driven scenarios you need X spellcasters, Y healers, and Z warriors to defeat an opponent, but I'm of an older school of pen-and-paper RPG players where in a good RPG, there's a large map (or better, a sandbox) with a series of encounters, wandering monsters, and lots of scenarios to roleplay, rather than a booklet of 5-7 hyper-defined single room maps with combat scenarios that require X spellcasters, Y healers and Z warriors to defeat the opponent.  

Let alone the fact that, to take one example, a spellcaster now is even more so a walking magic missle, rather than perhaps an interesting figure schooled in arcane lore who creates spells, mixes potions with untold results, and an actual interesting background, rather than a series of powers that I can shuffle like playing cards and play to defeat an opponent.  

This is just my take, watching how it's affected the games I run.  Will I still continue to play 4E?  Yes, because it's what others are playing, but I feel we're drifting away from traditional role playing the more we attempt to mimic what is succeeding in other markets (video games).

You know how you build a better bicycle?  You don't imitate a car.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Well to be fair D&D cleric's are based off the militant holy orders of the crusades. So playing a pacifist was never really part of that class. I myself hate they way d&d has made them into everyman of the clergy which is something they really are not meant to be but rather the warriors of the church more then the preachers




Amen!


----------



## FireLance (Jun 22, 2009)

tylerthehobo said:


> _In response to the responses to my post earlier about how the defined roles damage the ability for players to actually role play characters:
> 
> I think by making the characters fit into niches in the party explicitly (leader, controller, etc.), it damages the ability for a player to roleplay their role.  (Can't tell you how many times a new player at a table in the shop where I run games has said "I'd like to be X," and some other player holds forth about how we've already got too many controller types, etc., when it was just a kid wanting to play at being Gandalf or something...)  Party balance (we can't all be clerics...) is one thing, but by over strategizing party structure, we're removing the chance that maybe that Wizard wouldn't be a controller type - maybe they'd be the tank with the fireballs, or an elderly sage who avoids combat and is studying runes during the fray, trying to find the way through the dungeon.  Defining ones own character is what makes the game fun for many.  Walking into a formula - one more formulaic than 3.5e's splat books or 2e's Kits - is going to hurt the play of the game as a roleplaying game.  Those variant kits and splat books, mocked as they may have been by some in the hobby, actually opened more doors for variations on classes, rather than trying to shoe horn all players of a particular class into a singular, specific role._



_I'd like to respond to this on two levels. First, if someone who I know is new to D&D was to show up in my game and ask to play a "wizard", I wouldn't automatically assume that he wants to play an arcane controller. The term "wizard", when used by someone who is not very familiar with D&D, might actually cover a range of concepts which are mechanically expressed as the warlock class, the sorcerer class, the swordmage class, the artificer class, and possibly even the bard class in addition to the actual wizard class. I would ask him to go into more detail about how he envisions his character functioning in the game before advising him on which class he should select for his character.

Next, even if I end up with two wizards in a party, there is sufficient variation within the same class that one need not look or play like the other. There are also a number of ways for a player to define his character and make him distinct, even mechanically, beyond his choice of class: power choices, feats (multiclass feats in particular) and even hybrid characters (though still in playtest) are various ways to distinguish characters of the same class (or half class, for hybrids). And of course, there's always role-playing. I understand that it has been used, occasionally quite successfully, to make mechanically similar characters appear different in the past.




			Let alone the fact that, to take one example, a spellcaster now is even more so a walking magic missle, rather than perhaps an interesting figure schooled in arcane lore who creates spells, mixes potions with untold results, and an actual interesting background, rather than a series of powers that I can shuffle like playing cards and play to defeat an opponent. 

This is just my take, watching how it's affected the games I run.  Will I still continue to play 4E?  Yes, because it's what others are playing, but I feel we're drifting away from traditional role playing the more we attempt to mimic what is succeeding in other markets (video games).
		
Click to expand...


Frankly, I think how the game plays is very dependent on the players and the DM. If they decide (consciously or otherwise) to ignore the role-playing element in D&D, then yes, you're going to end up with something that plays more like a skirmish game or a puzzle game. But it's not something that is unique or especially prevalent in 4e unless you believe, as I do, that the role-playing gets neglected because all the other aspects of the game have become so much more fun. 



			You know how you build a better bicycle?  You don't imitate a car.
		
Click to expand...


While true, it doesn't mean that bicycle makers don't have anything to learn from car makers, either. Perhaps if car makers find some way to improve how tyres are made, bicycle makers may be able to apply that to bicycles, too._


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But to me, the fluff and crunch are married, and both are necessary for a complete game. Any given rule or fluff point can be changed, but to not include them you are sacrificing something major.




It's really not quite the same.   There's no fluff.  And there's no rules.  There's also detailed rules and fluff for everything.  But there's an acceptable amount of fluff, and there's an acceptable amount of rules.  However, they may not be in the same places, or for the same reasons.   

I'm fine with Elves as long-lived tree-huggers.  But that whole crossing-over nonsense?  Please no.



> That's my standpoint anyway, and perhaps a bit more of a window on how I just don't get why it's better to have "no fluff' instead of "fluff I can change".




Maybe you're just getting fooled by what people are saying versus what people mean.  I dunno, I'm not sure what people you were responding to were saying.

But for me, there's a difference between say, White Wolf RPGs, D&D, and GURPS.   I'm good with where D&D is on the continuum, less pleased with WW and GURPS.   If I had to make an analogy, it'd be like the difference between making pizza from total scratch, from components I selected, and buying a frozen one to cook.  And no, I really don't want to deal with anybody quibbling over how that's not exactly correct, I'm trying to give a sense of the situation, not an exact parallel.

But I hope that explained it better.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 22, 2009)

Tylerthehobo, the design approach definitely stands out to me, but I'm not sure it "damages" role-playing capability. (I'm not sure it does _not_ do so, either.)

I would say rather that it _reflects_ a shift in emphasis. If the focal point is one shared with certain computer games, I reckon that's because the designers of both are targeting a similar demographic (which is not me, and maybe not you).

From the expectation of a succession of new games in the trademarked series (for all that D&D VIII is euphemistically called "Fourth Edition") to the "v.3.5" on the covers of the previous release, to the designers sometimes sounding as if they worked in Redmond instead of Renton and were replacing obsolete technology (which makes the obsolete "hardware" you and me, brother), there's a definite video-game vibe -- to people seeing it enough from outside.

Comparing 4E to WoW is probably like lumping together Star Trek and Star Wars.


----------



## Mircoles (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was talking about the ruleset. In 4E, I would argue there is far less roleplaying potential in the ruleset.





If you need a rule set to tell you how to Rp, then your in the wrong hobby. 
There is as much potential for Rp in 4e as there ever was in any past edition. It basically comes down to the effort the Dm and players want to put into it. 
Rules for Rp were never needed and anyone can figure out how to do it. 
Especially since they likely did quite a lot of it as a child when they were playing pretend.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> If you need a rule set to tell you how to Rp, then your in the wrong hobby.
> There is as much potential for Rp in 4e as there ever was in any past edition.




Despite my dislike of 4Ed, I have to agree with this- the game's limitations are mechanical, not imaginative.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 22, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Despite my dislike of 4Ed, I have to agree with this- the game's limitations are mechanical, not imaginative.





Well sometimes that leads to the issue. If you feel boxed in or "punished" for doing anything other then attacking in some groups that is a problem.

Not all groups but ,there ya go


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> to the designers sometimes sounding as if they worked in Redmond instead of Renton and were replacing obsolete technology (which makes the obsolete "hardware" you and me, brother



Terrible analogy, I am afraid. 
You are not hardware. Hardware would be the dice, the pens, the paper, the miniatures, the game table. 

When M$ is bringing out a new Windows or Office, they are not intending to replace or outdate the users. But the hardware the software runs on might be outdated. 

Players and DMs are customers or users. 

In that terms, I think 4E has tried to improve in the usability area*. Clean layout, rules that fit on cards, easier ways to create an adventure (less work with building encounters or monsters.) Maybe that is also videogamey, since most video-gamesthese days - certainly World of Warcraft -  seem to aim for a user-friendly interface, instead of creating a "fake" difficulty in playing the game by a broken interface. 


*) So did 3E in many areas. Replacing THAC0 and multiple, incompatible subsystems to determine success and replacing it with a unified d20 mechanic. Streamlining saves. Treating all ability scores the same. The CR system. And probably much more only someone that actually played AD&D or OD&D might recognize.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Well sometimes that leads to the issue. If you feel boxed in or "punished" for doing anything other then attacking in some groups that is a problem.
> 
> Not all groups but ,there ya go




Besides the way 4Ed dictates the way a battle should flow or be fought, I dislike the alignment and multiclassing systems- they don't mesh well with my D&D PC design preferences.  And other stuff besides.

But I've discussed that ad nauseam in other threads- none of that is the point of this thread, which is about 4Ed's relation to videogames in general and WoW in particular.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 22, 2009)

You are right at that...nothing to see here move along


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Points of Light is supposed to make it easier for DMs to get started quickly, particularly beginners. The core rules of D&D should not be putting barriers in the way of new DMs. They shouldn't be suggesting a DM has to create a world before they can start running D&D.
> 
> If someone wants a bigger world then there's plenty of setting books and fantasy fiction available for inspiration.




Start the playing, yes, start the roleplaying, no. 4E definitely pushes Roll over Role as the first thing a new player experiences in the game.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Spatula said:


> You never visited the CharOp boards in the 3e days, I take it.  "Best build" is a concept that goes hand-in-hand with a multitude of build options.  There was a lot of the same attitude in the 3e days, and probably in the Skills & Powers era as well (although it wouldn't have been as visible, if it existed, since internet access wasn't as common as it is now).  It certainly exists even in older D&D, it's just a lot simpler because of the lack of character customization options.  Frex, "best 1e paladin build": get a holy avenger, magic (field) plate armor, a girdle of storm giant strength, and something that lets you fly.




Actually, I did quite a bit, but did not mention it as the discussion is on 4E, not 3E.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Despite my dislike of 4Ed, I have to agree with this- the game's limitations are mechanical, not imaginative.




Which was my point, Mircoles. However, I don't see it as a limitation as Danny does. I am observing.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> If you need a rule set to tell you how to Rp, then your in the wrong hobby.
> There is as much potential for Rp in 4e as there ever was in any past edition. It basically comes down to the effort the Dm and players want to put into it.
> Rules for Rp were never needed and anyone can figure out how to do it.
> Especially since they likely did quite a lot of it as a child when they were playing pretend.



_
I'll assume the 'you' above is gamers, and not me personally, but it is really hard to tell. _

I would tend not to agree with the above statement. I think you can RPG with nothing but a buddy sitting somewhere in the world connected to you by any of the myriad communication devices available. But learning to roleplay is a bit more complicated than just chatting or whatever. There are a lot of shared expectations and experience that help drive the roleplaying. If I go with Tolkein elves, and you go with hackmaster elves, it is gonna be pretty hard to roleplay, don't you think?

But to say again, I am talking about new D&D players new to RPGs. Whether from video game backgrounds or not.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> But to say again, I am talking about new D&D players new to RPGs. Whether from video game backgrounds or not.



If you're saying that 4E represents a roleplaying-unfriendly introduction to the table-top game, then I have to say that my experience speaks to the contrary. I've seen two brand new players take to roleplaying like ducks to water under 4E. There's tons of advice in the PHB, plenty enough to get someone to the table with at least some vague idea of what they can expect when they get there.

The kind of distinctions you're talking about -- the difference, for example, in how to roleplay the concept of an "elf" based on two differing game systems -- are light-years from the concerns that someone brand new to the hobby brings with them to the table... concerns like "how do I not suck?" and "how do I not make a fool of myself?" and "I hope the DM doesn't ask me anything in character this week!".


----------



## Rechan (Jun 22, 2009)

> To me, I guess saying "I'm glad there's no fluff, so I can make my own, just how I like it." is tantamount to saying "I'm glad there's no rules, so I can make my own, just how I like it."



The difference is that fluff is easy to make. Rules that work are hard to make. Especially a whole system that is interlocked and functions smoothly.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> 4E definitely pushes Roll over Role as the first thing a new player experiences in the game.



The rules are the first thing any new player comes up against. They are the first thing any new player has to learn. They are what you have to spend time teaching. They are the majority of the book in the first place.

You don't spend 90% of the character creation process detailing story, you do it crunching numbers, picking feats, alotting weapon/non-weapon proficiencies or skill points, and noting spells.



Dice4Hire said:


> Actually, I did quite a bit, but did not mention it as the discussion is on 4E, not 3E.



Which is then very ungenuine. You made the complaint about 4e and builds, and yet it happened with 3e. So what was your point?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2009)

I wouldn't necessarily say fluff is easy to make. But the thing is - there is tons of fluff already available to us. I am not sure I could come up with one of Grim Tales, the Greek mythology or Harry Potter. But this stuff already exists, it is there. Some of the fluff that is out there we like, it inspires us. And so we want to use it. If the game comes with its own fluff, it might appeal to us, too. But it might also distract us from what we really want in fluff. 

A big part of roleplaying is that we can imagine being in a world like in stories, novels or movies we have already seen and we are familiar with. I doubt many are attracted to an RPG in general because they offer a different way to use dice, paper and pencils. We are in for pretending to be an Elf or being a wise Wizard or a powerful swordsman, like [insert famous literary or move character here]. Good fluff is subjective - maybe it evokes the right image of a wise Wizard, or exactly the wrong. ("Huh, preparing spells? Why do I not need a Staff to cast spells, every Wizard needs spells? And why are their Greek and Viking Gods in the same campaign? I don't like Zeus! Why are fey from a different reality. Why do demons and devils fight each other, I thought they were basically the same?")

It happens to be that the fluff in 4E does resonate better with me than the fluff of 3E. But if it did not, I might also be annoyed in having to "forget" the stuff or work around it when considering a published adventure.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 22, 2009)

No the FIRST thing is chapter 1, and it's the best damn RP advice chapter 1 EVER in a D&D PHB.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Which is then very ungenuine. You made the complaint about 4e and builds, and yet it happened with 3e. So what was your point?




We are discussing WOW and 4E, and I was comparing them. Another poster brought up the 3E stuff, not I.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 22, 2009)

Well, I'm gonna leave this thread now. I've said what I want to say.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> We are discussing WOW and 4E, and I was comparing them. Another poster brought up the 3E stuff, not I.



And if the comparison between WoW and 4e _also_ applies to 3e, than it isn't something specific to 4e, but of D&D. 

WoW and 4e also have classes. I guess the fact that all editions of D&D have classes doesn't matter because the only thing being discussed is whether 4e.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 22, 2009)

The problem is, 4E and basic, core books take a lot for granted still. The PHB does a woeful job of explaining to prospective players how to play D&D beyond the combat rules, Not just the 4E PHB, but the 3E, 3.5 and AD&D ones too. Does the 4E PHB even have a combat description? (The AD&D one had the best of those imo). For a game that desperately needs to approach a new generation it simply is not friendly to new groups. If you give all the books to a young group of people none of which has any experience with roleplaying, do you think they will even manage to play D&D? Would they even try when they can have fun with games with far more obvious gameplay?

I think this is the biggest difference 4E and D&D in general has with a succesful videogame like WoW (or heck with any good game). Gameplay is not intuitive and is badly guided. While there is to some extend a learning curve for combat encounters, there is no learning curve for the roleplaying experience. The podcasts are probably the best thing they've done on that level.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 22, 2009)

Spatula said:


> That's not what TwinBahamut was saying at all.  He said the common conception of "fun" was evolving with time. You somehow took that and bent it into meaning that video games are driving that evolution, a statement that I don't think can be supported. Especially by someone who self-describes as knowing absolutely nothing about video games.




That assumption of yours is not what I said at all, please go back and read.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 22, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> If you give all the books to a young group of people none of which has any experience with roleplaying, do you think they will even manage to play D&D?



Of course they would. It may not be the D&D you play, but it would be D&D.



> Would they even try when they can have fun with games with far more obvious gameplay?



This is a very different question that applies broadly to table-top roleplaying as a whole. Nothing you can do to a coffee-table rule-book will ever fix this problem.



> The podcasts are probably the best thing they've done on that level.



Agreed entirely!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The problem is, 4E and basic, core books take a lot for granted still. The PHB does a woeful job of explaining to prospective players how to play D&D beyond the combat rules, Not just the 4E PHB, but the 3E, 3.5 and AD&D ones too. Does the 4E PHB even have a combat description? (The AD&D one had the best of those imo). For a game that desperately needs to approach a new generation it simply is not friendly to new groups. If you give all the books to a young group of people none of which has any experience with roleplaying, do you think they will even manage to play D&D? Would they even try when they can have fun with games with far more obvious gameplay?




I suspect it would work well for beginners. But since I don't have a focus group to study, that's all guessing.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 22, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.
> 
> Take the rays of calming light. (I hate myself for what I type next, and I intend no snark). Why couldn't you do that in 3e?
> 
> ...




In 3e, I would have had to either take a -4 on my attacks (dealing subdual damage) or take the metamagic feat that converts a spell to subdual without the penalty (but raises the spell's level).  In either case I would have been mechanically punished for something that was purely for role play.  I tried, years ago, to make this type of character under 3e and my DM at the time wouldn't allow it outside of the above options.  I didn't want to be dead weight for the team, so I just made a basic cleric.

4e has a looser definition of hps.  This means that I can define my attacks as taking away the enemy's fighting spirit rather than inflicting actual injury, without any problems.  In addition, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to knock someone unconscious.  The reskinnable nature of 4e's power system is one of my favorite elements, for this reason.

In 3e, it might have worked if the DM had allowed me to create a unique set of spells for my character that were calming rays of light (which he wasn't interested in doing).  In 4e, I take the existing powers, reskin flavor, and go (and that same DM doesn't care).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 22, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Well to be fair D&D cleric's are based off the militant holy orders of the crusades. So playing a pacifist was never really part of that class. I myself hate they way d&d has made them into everyman of the clergy which is something they really are not meant to be but rather the warriors of the church more then the preachers




Actually, that has to do with our campaign setting, not the base assumptions of the PHB.

4e PHB pg 60, "Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine power".  Clerics are still the exception rather than the rule among priests, and they still have a strong militant flavor.

That said, my dwarven cleric is in a "dawn of the world" setting.  The world is still young and there are no established religious orders or gods.  People worship the spirits of the world around them, and occasionally someone is so inspired by one of these spirits that they awaken to divine power.

Yeah, I admit that playing a pacifist was never a central element of the cleric class.  Nonetheless, I've always wanted to play one and 4e's flexibility doesn't punish me for that.

Getting back to my original point, all I'm saying is that lack of flavor can be just as much a good thing to inspire role play as a bad thing, hindering it.  It really just depends on the person (what inspires them).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 22, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Start the playing, yes, start the roleplaying, no. 4E definitely pushes Roll over Role as the first thing a new player experiences in the game.




So what is the purpose of pgs 18-24 (the Roleplaying section) of the PHB then?

I strongly disagree.  I think 4e is very much about "freedom to make up your own fluff".  I won't argue that that might make it harder for some to role play, but others (including new players that I've met over the years) love making up new stuff.  It's unfortunate that it is better for some than others, but as the old adage says, you can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

Folks, please don't tell other people what they've said or what they think. That way lies madness.. and not the fun kind of madness with rolling eyes and tentacles.

I'll disagree with the assertion that 4e doesn't emphasize roleplaying. Just yesterday I ran across an interesting blog post from Mearls about that:
The Keep on the Gaming Lands: The Curse of the Absent Host


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> In 3e, I would have had to either take a -4 on my attacks (dealing subdual damage) or take the metamagic feat that converts a spell to subdual without the penalty (but raises the spell's level). In either case I would have been mechanically punished for something that was purely for role play. I tried, years ago, to make this type of character under 3e and my DM at the time wouldn't allow it outside of the above options. I didn't want to be dead weight for the team, so I just made a basic cleric.
> 
> 4e has a looser definition of hps. This means that I can define my attacks as taking away the enemy's fighting spirit rather than inflicting actual injury, without any problems. In addition, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to knock someone unconscious. The reskinnable nature of 4e's power system is one of my favorite elements, for this reason.
> 
> In 3e, it might have worked if the DM had allowed me to create a unique set of spells for my character that were calming rays of light (which he wasn't interested in doing). In 4e, I take the existing powers, reskin flavor, and go (and that same DM doesn't care).




Ah, gotcha.

So I was sort of on track? Because there were already rules that overrulled the fluff changes you wanted to make in 3e? (the -4 subdual).

Essentially, though, I don't see this as a "less fluff is better" argument so much as "3e had too many specific rules" and also "4e rules let the last hit be subdual damage".

So, in my opinion, it still comes back to you could refluff in either, but the crunch in 4e makes this more easily done than the crunch in 3e. Which means that more fluff in 4e would not have prevented this.

Am I missing something? I'm really not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't get why a DM would allow a fluff change in 4e but not in 3e unless it was rules driven. 

The only way I could see that would be if there were a tyrant dm who would only go with canon, and allow you to fill in the blanks. e.g. "It says RIGHT HERE that that this spell looks like beams of light. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT WRITE YOUR NAME, JIM DARKMAGIC!!!"


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 22, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Ah, gotcha.
> 
> So I was sort of on track? Because there were already rules that overrulled the fluff changes you wanted to make in 3e? (the -4 subdual).
> 
> ...




Yes, it is definitely mechanically driven to a degree.

I think it also has to do with the simulationist approach of 3e.  I don't think that that DM would have accepted "calming" as an acceptable source of damage in 3e, despite that he has no problems with it in 4th (he would have told me to cast the Calm spell and left it at that).  I suppose in this case it's less that the power fluff is vague than that the hp fluff is vague?

Part of it is also that, for me, it's a harder for me to repurpose 3e Flame Strike (cylindrical tower half of fire and half holy) than it is a burst 1 that deals fire and radiant damage.  The preconceived notion of what a (defined) Flame Strike is stifles my creative process a bit.  I just feel that 4e leaves my imagination more freedom to wander.  So, yeah, just a personal opinion but there it is.  

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "less fluff is better".  I'm saying, "less fluff is preferable to _some_".


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2009)

I think I understand now.

...and good point about better versus preferable to some. 

-Aberzanzorax


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Folks, please don't tell other people what they've said or what they think. That way lies madness.. and not the fun kind of madness with rolling eyes and tentacles.
> 
> I'll disagree with the assertion that 4e doesn't emphasize roleplaying. Just yesterday I ran across an interesting blog post from Mearls about that:
> The Keep on the Gaming Lands: The Curse of the Absent Host




Good post, and thanks for sharing Mearls' post about RPing in 4e, Piratecat.  Gave me another perspective on it.  I'm still concerned that we're scenario-ing 4e away from rp-ing, but seeing how Mearls (and many of the posters here) approaches it gives me some hope.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 22, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> That assumption of yours is not what I said at all, please go back and read.



I don't understand what you were saying, then.



Hereticus said:


> More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.
> <snip>
> But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?



I read "in the RPG world, video games are being defined as what is fun" and "people who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game" as saying that video games' definition of fun is changing what is considered to be fun in RPGs.  Apparently I'm misunderstanding something.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 22, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Actually, that has to do with our campaign setting, not the base assumptions of the PHB.
> 
> 4e PHB pg 60, "Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine power".  Clerics are still the exception rather than the rule among priests, and they still have a strong militant flavor.
> 
> ...





Well you see you could always play one in 3.5 if you messed with fluff9 or any other edition I would guess. Take the wizard change fluff, pick non damaging spells...or take a cleric or a druid and pick non damaging spells. Or simply do like you have and change the fluff of the spells and like you are now and changing the spells themselves.

It always could have been done. It is just that is not what that class is ment for.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 22, 2009)

Whoops, redundant post.


----------

