The MMO Fear

Down with edition X! Edition X is too much like (insert popular computer game here).

This has been the rallying cry for many players since the announcement of 3e. The edition and game may have changed but the argument remains the same.

Now, I do not feel that 4e really has anything more in common with a game like WoW than 1e, it still interests me how pervasive this argument is. The real question I always ask myself when someone uses this argument is "why is that a bad thing?"

WoW has managed to capture a much larger player base than D&D ever could. WoW has classes that are balanced while still maintaining a unique feel and play style for each. WoW is fun. WoW gives you a wide variety of options. WoW is set in an imaginary fantasy world where the players go from everyday adventures to great heroes saving the world from destruction.

Why are such concepts anathema to so many in the community. WoW has certainly evolved in the 7 years it has been around and has become a more enjoyable game for it. Instead of fearing MMOs D&D should learn from them.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

Well, if 5e truly is a 3.x retroclone, then it would be Diablo 3, would it not? /duck

 
I disagree that we should take more from them -- and I'm an MMO Junkie.

But the very last thing I'd want to see is certain specs looked down upon because they aren't considered viable in endgame.

...erm...yannow what, nevermind.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Bah! MMOs.

D&D should learn from 90s-early 00s era fighting games on how to do balance while making everyone feel different.
Especially the wackier ones and the earlier crossovers.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I've said it elsewhere, but:

Ignoring all of the development and experiementation in computer gaming - or any "game" genre - is pure folly.  Obviously you don't have exactly the same specific goals, but that doesn't mean you can't take from, and learn from, the various products.  In many cases the "problems" they attempt to solve with new mechanics or rules or designs are "problems" that are either univeral to gaming in general, or universal to that particular sub-genre (like "rpg").

For instance, dealing with mechanics for limited-use abilities.  While you won't see a lot of innovation or experimentation regarding Vancian mechanics in videogames (because the entire concept was almost entirely discarded many, many years ago now), you can easily look around to see lots and lots and lots and lots of different ways to handle "limited-use abilities" in other ways.


Heck, just within Diablo 3, how many ability-usage subsystems do they have?  One for every class?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
The MMO thing is ridiculous.  4E was much more like a CCG than an MMO.  In my humble opinion, anyhow.

I don't see anything MMO-like in Next at all.  But people will take the vaguest similarities and act like it is some sort of plague.
I've said it elsewhere, but:

Ignoring all of the development and experiementation in computer gaming - or any "game" genre - is pure folly.  Obviously you don't have exactly the same specific goals, but that doesn't mean you can't take from, and learn from, the various products.  In many cases the "problems" they attempt to solve with new mechanics or rules or designs are "problems" that are either univeral to gaming in general, or universal to that particular sub-genre (like "rpg").

For instance, dealing with mechanics for limited-use abilities.  While you won't see a lot of innovation or experimentation regarding Vancian mechanics in videogames (because the entire concept was almost entirely discarded many, many years ago now), you can easily look around to see lots and lots and lots and lots of different ways to handle "limited-use abilities" in other ways.


Heck, just within Diablo 3, how many ability-usage subsystems do they have?  One for every class?



Yes, a vancian casting system is not the greatest system to use in computer game.  That is a true statement.  It's not a good system for the same reason 4e's basic structure is difficult to port over to a MMO.  The sheer volume of powers would overwhelm the average player and possibly have an adverse effect on the hardware.  It also represents alot of wasted data.  A player getting only one power out of x powers tends to be looked down in MMO because resources are too precious in a MMO.  

In addition, there's a big difference between a MMO audience and tabletop audience.  Stuff has to be tailored to the audience.  If a RPG were to take every element from a MMO, why would anyone play a RPG?  You get the same experience from a MMO; which easier to access for the most part (no calling players to schedule a time to get together after all). 

The MMO / RPG argument is just a ploy to equate to somewhat similar models that have fundamental differences.  It's just a method to gain support against something that someone (or a group of someones) doesn't like.  In this regard, it's like call any politician a fascist or a socialist.  It's probably not true, but it makes the anti-whatever politician feel like they are right.   
Down with edition X! Edition X is too much like (insert popular computer game here).
The real question I always ask myself when someone uses this argument is "why is that a bad thing?"


It's Popular, Now It Sucks.

Because it's fashionable to show one's superiority to the unwashed masses by badmouthing things that are popular.  And, by extension, one can therefore slander other things one dislikes by comparing them to popular things, therefore demonstrating their obvious inferiority.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It might have just been a timing thing, since 4E came out right after WoW announced that they were codifying the class roles from "shamans aren't the greatest tank" into "we outright forbid any shaman from trying to be the tank", so I know it was at least at the front of my attention at the time.

Any video game is constructed of rules, the same way a tabletop game is, but video games are under much greater restrictions since they're limited to what the computer can understand and they don't have a living DM there to make sure things run smoothly.  As such, the issue wasn't that 4E was incorporating features of WoW, so much as they were incorporating unnecessary features.

The metagame is not the game.

What at essence is great about a ttrpg is exactly what separates it from a video game.  MMO or not.  I have no issue with playing and enjoying those games.  But if an rpg fills the same space and no other then it is a poor substitute.  Live action, auto resolving combat, is far better then manually rolling dice.  

I believe when they say a game is like an MMO or video game (no difference for purposes of the argument), they are saying it has very structured limited options.  You choose your actions from a menu without open ended DM adjudication.  

I don't think 4e was that bad though.  But if you want to insert the true meaning to those statements thats what they are getting at.   I do think 4e was too structured.  It removed most spells and powers that required DM adjudication.  Each power because very crystal clear about what it could do exactly without wiggle room.  Thats good for some people but others feel like - why not just play an MMO.  Why put up with the downsides of ttrpg's if you don't get the advantages?

Note: I hope this reveals an opinion and is not offensive.  It is not intended as such. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The MMO thing is mostly a shot across generational lines, becaue usualy the younger subset of players embrace the borader spectrum of fantasy works that exist today. Back when 4E was in development a lot of arguments I heard could be distilled to "If it aint Tolkien it aint D&D"

Say what you will about mechanics I think Azeroth would make an kick ass campaign setting.
4E was much more like a CCG than an MMO.  In my humble opinion, anyhow.



When I do hear this argument, it always confuses me.  What elements of 4e seem at all collectable to you? 

(As an aside, there was a D&D CCG once upon a time, called Spellfire.  It was made by TSR as an effort to supplant Magic the Gathering, and it did so well that TSR went backrupt and was purchased by Wizards of the Coast.)

Perhaps you've seen people playing 4e making heavy use of the power cards to track their power uses?  I assume you just never saw the spell cards for 3e?

Just curious. 
4E was much more like a CCG than an MMO.  In my humble opinion, anyhow.



When I do hear this argument, it always confuses me.  What elements of 4e seem at all collectable to you? 

(As an aside, there was a D&D CCG once upon a time, called Spellfire.  It was made by TSR as an effort to supplant Magic the Gathering, and it did so well that TSR went backrupt and was purchased by Wizards of the Coast.)

Perhaps you've seen people playing 4e making heavy use of the power cards to track their power uses?  I assume you just never saw the spell cards for 3e?

Just curious. 



Cards that explicity define how things work is part of it.  The other part is the encouragement to buy more books so your character can get different power cards instead.  Imho, previous editions had more books with more unique mechanics and 4E tended to have books that didn't change mechanics much at all...which is a lot like a CCG.  More so than 4E was like an MMO anyhow.

This is further emphasized by the fact they had the balance guidelines down so well that there was no need for such books.  They could have had power guidelines in the DMG so that new powers for any class could easily be made....but they didn't.  They could have had power guidelines to scale up or down powers to higher or lower levels. ....but they didn't.  The only real reason why not, that I can see, is to create more of a desire for people to buy future books.  Similar to people buying boosters in a CCG.

Again, not saying it is 100% dead-on, just a far better analogy than calling 4E an MMO.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />(As an aside, there was a D&D CCG once upon a time, called Spellfire.  It was made by TSR as an effort to supplant Magic the Gathering, and it did so well that TSR went backrupt and was purchased by Wizards of the Coast.)



I dont know that Spellfire was directly responsible for the collapse of TSR.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Emerikol,

That is an apt summary of my feelings on the MMO analogy.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

The MMO thing is mostly a shot across generational lines, becaue usualy the younger subset of players embrace the borader spectrum of fantasy works that exist today. Back when 4E was in development a lot of arguments I heard could be distilled to "If it aint Tolkien it aint D&D"

Say what you will about mechanics I think Azeroth would make an kick ass campaign setting.



To me, you hit the nail on the head. Honestly I was glad to be rid of the 'rotund, hariy-footed, hobbit-but-not-hobbit' halflings in 4e. I was also glad to be rid of a lot of the other Tolkeinesque tropes that were in previous editions. D&D should be D&D not 'Middle Earth with a twist'. If I wanted to play in Middle Earth, I'd play one of the many TTRPGS that do LotR better than D&D ever could. 

Also funny you should mention Azeroth as a setting (despite what I am about to go off on, I love the Azeroth setting and the stories in it). I have been tossing around the idea of tweaking classes and how they work to do a 4e version of WoW. Would probably be easier to use Essentials design with a few addendums, but I think it could be done. 

As for the person (I think it was the OP) who stated that WoW has grown and become a better game, I have to strongly disagree with that notion. Vanilla was great and had lots of potential. Then came BC...more of the same, but okay. Then came LK...more of the same...and not necessarily in a good way (back pedaling on the idea of what Hero Classes were supposed to be and making it easy to get a DK, and then nerfing the hell out of it wasn't good). Then came Cata...which I actually liked and thought they were making a step forward, even if it was a baby step (they were even going to have Alternate Advancement ala the Path of the Titans before they back pedaled on that too). Mists is just horrible. My interest died half way through Cata's cycle and I thought Mists might bring me back, but instead I am having fun elsewhere and I haven't looked back. Honestly WoW never had any 'expansions' they had 'extensions'. If you want to see what real expansions are supposed to do take a look at EQ2. 

Anywho, that's enough of my disappointment with WoW for this forum. I will say that I like the idea of a WoW setting (complete with class tweaks to make them feel similar somehow) for 4e, as I liked playing it in 3.x when 3.x was all there was (only reason why I played 3.x). I didn't think it quite captured the flavor of the setting or the races and classes. Oddly enough despite all the 4e = WoW arguements I heard during the dreaded Edition Wars, I think 4e has a good chance of capturing the feel and themes of the WoW setting and story better than 3.x did.            
Bah! MMOs.

D&D should learn from 90s-early 00s era fighting games on how to do balance while making everyone feel different.
Especially the wackier ones and the earlier crossovers.



Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, King of Fighters 98, Hokuto no Ken, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Capcom vs SNK 2, and Marvel vs. Capcom 2 all have three things in common:

1. They're still being played to this day.
2. They're very much different from each other
3. They're not at all balanced.
Down with edition X! Edition X is too much like (insert popular computer game here). This has been the rallying cry for many players since the announcement of 3e. The edition and game may have changed but the argument remains the same. Now, I do not feel that 4e really has anything more in common with a game like WoW than 1e, it still interests me how pervasive this argument is. The real question I always ask myself when someone uses this argument is "why is that a bad thing?" WoW has managed to capture a much larger player base than D&D ever could. WoW has classes that are balanced while still maintaining a unique feel and play style for each. WoW is fun. WoW gives you a wide variety of options. WoW is set in an imaginary fantasy world where the players go from everyday adventures to great heroes saving the world from destruction. Why are such concepts anathema to so many in the community. WoW has certainly evolved in the 7 years it has been around and has become a more enjoyable game for it. Instead of fearing MMOs D&D should learn from them.



Which of these fits?

1.  Down with 2nd edition!  It is too much like Balder's Gate!
2.  Down with 3rd edition!  It is too much like Neverwinter Nights!
3.  Down with 4th edition!  It is too much like World of Warcraft!

Only the third one.  Where there is smoke there is fire.  Magic being smushed into DPS w/ongoing damaage, balance taking precedence over variety, the very advent of the idea of "fluff" to dismiss any actual roleplaying elements having significance within the game mechanics.  4th edition largely became WoW the RPG.

As to why it is a bad thing?  Simply put, because someone would rather play those things that were removed.  You say WoW is fun, I say it is not.  Saying WoW is big so we should do that too is a faulty argument - the SIMS put WoW to shame in terms of revenue and sales, should they change their game to match?  The D&D product was made and survived because of the gaming experience it provides.  It is more adaptable than any video game can seek to be, it is more customizable limited only by the imagination of the players involved, it is largely because the "fluff" that we imagine can be translated into a game where that "fluff" matters even MORE than the pre-set rules.  In an MMO, you aren't telling a story, you are seeking to smash monsters and get gear drops so balance equates to fun.  In a true RPG the power levels of the classes are so secondary to the archtypes we seek to emulate and act out.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

I agree and besides, only 4E resembled "a popular video game" (I hate WoW by the way), since Baldur's and Neverwinter were based on the tabletop RPG, not the other way around.
Which of these fits?

1.  Down with 2nd edition!  It is too much like Balder's Gate!
2.  Down with 3rd edition!  It is too much like Neverwinter Nights!
3.  Down with 4th edition!  It is too much like World of Warcraft!

Only the third one.  .


EH? I've been playing 4e for almost 2 years now, I don't see the WoW comparison at all.
EH? I've been playing 4e for almost 2 years now, I don't see the WoW comparison at all.



I've done this argument to death with my gaming group.  You'll never get anywhere.  Group roles in one game and group roles in the other, therefore they are the same.  Ignore that the specializing is a lot less and in somewhat different areas though, but that's against the narrative.  It's really based on a lot of vague similarities that largely apply to previous versions of D&D too but weren't explicitly commented upon -- except perhaps where D&D was horribly unbalanced.

I prefer making comparisons of 4E's business model to CCGs, which is somewhat accurate I think.  The problems with the game stem more from being too boardgame-like more than anything.
I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
I have played 4e for 3 years, played World of Warcraft since vanilla (and even more many kind of MMOs)...no, 4e doesn't feel like WoW at all.

Hell, if there is a game i would compare 4e to, it would be Final Fantasy Tactics or Tactics Ogre games...and i like that more than Diablo-esque of 3rd edition... 
I would guess that 2e didn't get compared to videogames (as much, if at all) because (a) no (real) internet; and (b) videogames were just getting on their feet.

3e sure as hell got compared to videogames though.  And it was almost always just as stupid as 4e-is-WoW comparisons.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?




The only things I can think of is that in wow, you have different types of powers that recharge at different time rates based on their power. Thus, the encounter/daily mechanic, espicialy for things like martial abilities, has a kind of recharge feel to it. In addition to that, in wow, after every fight, you can eat food or, "self heal" and get all your health back and go into the next fight fully charged and ready to go. Thus healing surges in 4th create the sense of being able to "self heal" and be at "full health" every time you go into a fight. 

The problem though is that, 4th ed dosnt have self heal or instant heal. Healing surge mechanic, while letting you recharge a limited amount of hps per day, was actually a limit on healing, since you could not really heal once your surges are gone, not even by most magical means. 

And the complaint about encounter/daily martial powers misses the fact that there were martial powers in all previous editions that had limited use, such as smite evil and barbarian rage. Even some at will powers, such as cleave, and improved AO ability for blocking were avalible in much the same form in 3rd ed. I think games like WoW borrow way more from DnD's heritage than DnD took from them.

Thus, I think saying that 4th ed is like wow is not very accurate. 4th ed had much bigger concerns, such as 2 hour combats, being very tough to play without grid and minitures, indepth character creation process that led every DM I know require players to create characters with the DDI tools because mistakes were rampent, and in general, having the game focas way more on combat powers than anything else. 

But the WoW argument or MMO argument in general I think is pretty weak. But thats just my take on things. 
I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?


ABout as much as "Ok, you guys deal lots of damage, you be the strikers, you guys have a lot of health, you be the tanks", etc. About as much as pre-4e from what I played.
When most powers do damage plus a condition and that is it, it smacks of an MMO.  Now even I admit that that is not everything 4e did.  They did go that way though.  They took a lot of spells that could be used in unusual ways to either removed them or nuetered them.  I'm not talking power level here.  Just flexibility and DM adjudication.  That is a trend towards MMOs but that doesn't make it an MMO of course.  It's just closer.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?



Yes.  They're called 'specs', short for specializations.  Each class has three distinct specs.  Of those 3 specs, one is generally for pvp, one is considered viable for 'endgame raiding', and the other is seldom used or is outright laughed at.  They change from expansion to expansion and patch to patch sometimes (as in which is good for what -- the names of the trees and their 'core talents' are unchanged).

Warriors are either dps or tanks.  Fury is DPS, and Arms is PVP DPS (damage per second).  Prot is threat-generation tank.
Druids are either dps, tanks, or healers.  They are unique in that their DPS spec can be ranged or melee, and the DPS tree changes based on their preference (Feral is both tank and melee DPS, depending on whcih 'talents' you pick -- individual powers and stat adjustments; Balance is ranged/caster DPS, and Restoration is healer).
Death Knights are tank or DPS.  They have two different DPS trees and one Tank tree.  It changes a -lot-, so I'm not sure which the current preferred is.  Blood, I think.

and so on.  All of the classes can do a 'choice' of at least 2 roles except for 4 -- the so-called pures.  They can only DPS.  The pures are: Rogue, Hunter, Mage, and Warlock.  They each have 3 DPS trees but, again, only 1 is considered 'viable'.  There are no pure healers and there are no pure tanks.

That's specs and roles in a nutshell.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."



Which of these fits?

1.  Down with 2nd edition!  It is too much like Balder's Gate!
2.  Down with 3rd edition!  It is too much like Neverwinter Nights!
3.  Down with 4th edition!  It is too much like World of Warcraft!

Only the third one.  Where there is smoke there is fire.  Magic being smushed into DPS w/ongoing damaage, balance taking precedence over variety, the very advent of the idea of "fluff" to dismiss any actual roleplaying elements having significance within the game mechanics.  4th edition largely became WoW the RPG.

As to why it is a bad thing?  Simply put, because someone would rather play those things that were removed.  You say WoW is fun, I say it is not.  Saying WoW is big so we should do that too is a faulty argument - the SIMS put WoW to shame in terms of revenue and sales, should they change their game to match?  The D&D product was made and survived because of the gaming experience it provides.  It is more adaptable than any video game can seek to be, it is more customizable limited only by the imagination of the players involved, it is largely because the "fluff" that we imagine can be translated into a game where that "fluff" matters even MORE than the pre-set rules.  In an MMO, you aren't telling a story, you are seeking to smash monsters and get gear drops so balance equates to fun.  In a true RPG the power levels of the classes are so secondary to the archtypes we seek to emulate and act out.



Wrong on all counts- 4th edition does not resemble WoW any more than third edition resembles Diablo2.

As for balance equating fun in MMO's - it is not only MMO's that should ave balance- if tabletop games are unbalanced as badly as third edition was it leads to only a few archetypes being fun to play in the long run unless you simply like playing an extraneous character.  If you do like playing an extraneous character more power to you but that shouldn't mean that those of us who want to play those archetypes and still be a contributing member of the party should have to choose between contributing and our prefered archetype.
 
I agree and besides, only 4E resembled "a popular video game" (I hate WoW by the way), since Baldur's and Neverwinter were based on the tabletop RPG, not the other way around.


Oh please.  The fighter in AD&D 2e, and in 3e, totally resembled Link.  You just approach your enemy and spam your sword.  Plus, you relied entirely on the acquisition of magic items and gear to keep you relevent.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I agree and besides, only 4E resembled "a popular video game" (I hate WoW by the way), since Baldur's and Neverwinter were based on the tabletop RPG, not the other way around.


Oh please.  The fighter in AD&D 2e, and in 3e, totally resembled Link.  You just approach your enemy and spam your sword.  Plus, you relied entirely on the acquisition of magic items and gear to keep you relevent.


...
I laughed, I must admit.

Never thought of it that way, but... yeah, that works.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?



Yes.  They're called 'specs', short for specializations.  Each class has three distinct specs.  Of those 3 specs, one is generally for pvp, one is considered viable for 'endgame raiding', and the other is seldom used or is outright laughed at.  They change from expansion to expansion and patch to patch sometimes (as in which is good for what -- the names of the trees and their 'core talents' are unchanged).

Warriors are either dps or tanks.  Fury is DPS, and Arms is PVP DPS (damage per second).  Prot is threat-generation tank.
Druids are either dps, tanks, or healers.  They are unique in that their DPS spec can be ranged or melee, and the DPS tree changes based on their preference (Feral is both tank and melee DPS, depending on whcih 'talents' you pick -- individual powers and stat adjustments; Balance is ranged/caster DPS, and Restoration is healer).
Death Knights are tank or DPS.  They have two different DPS trees and one Tank tree.  It changes a -lot-, so I'm not sure which the current preferred is.  Blood, I think.

and so on.  All of the classes can do a 'choice' of at least 2 roles except for 4 -- the so-called pures.  They can only DPS.  The pures are: Rogue, Hunter, Mage, and Warlock.  They each have 3 DPS trees but, again, only 1 is considered 'viable'.  There are no pure healers and there are no pure tanks.

That's specs and roles in a nutshell.


While that's true, you can ignore spec roles unless you're playing the most recent endgame material.  I've seen hunters and warlocks use their pets to tank.  And tanks can do outrageous damage.  Even PvP specs, for the right classes, can make good strikers.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?



Yes.  They're called 'specs', short for specializations.  Each class has three distinct specs.  Of those 3 specs, one is generally for pvp, one is considered viable for 'endgame raiding', and the other is seldom used or is outright laughed at.  They change from expansion to expansion and patch to patch sometimes (as in which is good for what -- the names of the trees and their 'core talents' are unchanged).

Warriors are either dps or tanks.  Fury is DPS, and Arms is PVP DPS (damage per second).  Prot is threat-generation tank.
Druids are either dps, tanks, or healers.  They are unique in that their DPS spec can be ranged or melee, and the DPS tree changes based on their preference (Feral is both tank and melee DPS, depending on whcih 'talents' you pick -- individual powers and stat adjustments; Balance is ranged/caster DPS, and Restoration is healer).
Death Knights are tank or DPS.  They have two different DPS trees and one Tank tree.  It changes a -lot-, so I'm not sure which the current preferred is.  Blood, I think.

and so on.  All of the classes can do a 'choice' of at least 2 roles except for 4 -- the so-called pures.  They can only DPS.  The pures are: Rogue, Hunter, Mage, and Warlock.  They each have 3 DPS trees but, again, only 1 is considered 'viable'.  There are no pure healers and there are no pure tanks.

That's specs and roles in a nutshell.


While that's true, you can ignore spec roles unless you're playing the most recent endgame material.  I've seen hunters and warlocks use their pets to tank.  And tanks can do outrageous damage.  Even PvP specs, for the right classes, can make good strikers.


Hmm... "strikers", "tanks", "warlocks", etc.

That doesn't sound familiar at all. I can't imagine why anyone would make the comparison to 4E.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Howdy folks,

This is already a touchy subject so please remember that bashing of any edition of D&D and negative comparisons to video games are considered forum disruption and are thus against the Code of Conduct.

All around helpful simian

A bit of outdated info here on WoW.

Class roles are now rigid.  Completely inflexible.  If you are Spec X of Class Y, then you are one of three roles:  damage, tank, healer.  The spec you pick is directly tied to a role.  Directly.  There are no choices, there are no options.  There is one exception, that of the Feral Druid, which has two roles bundled into one spec, but even that is being broken apart in the next few months.  Druids will simply have four specs, where everyone else has three.

And it's not just at endgame.  Starting at level 10, when you choose a spec, you have defined what you are best at.  You get spec-only abilities, strong passive bonuses, and you really do become significantly better at only one role.  Furthermore, using the automated dungeon group finder tool, you pick a specific role, and get pulled into the dungeon as that role and only that role, starting at level 15 (out of 85, soon to be 90 in a few months).

Whether role-based class design is a good choice for D&D is a matter for debate, but there should be absolutely no illusions that WoW is completely role-based class design, top to bottom.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

While that's true, you can ignore spec roles unless you're playing the most recent endgame material.  I've seen hunters and warlocks use their pets to tank.  And tanks can do outrageous damage.  Even PvP specs, for the right classes, can make good strikers.



There is a -lot- wrong with this statement.  Much too much to actually spend a post on.  However...allow me to say this: while, in a technical sense, what you say has moments of truth...it is as far from actual truth as the statement 'A book needs to be made with water' is.

I'm not trying to be mean or 'call you out' or any of that...just saying that it's pretty clear you don't play WoW.  And that's okay! Smile

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I don't play WoW, so would someone please indulge me...

Does WoW have pre-defined class roles?



Yes.  They're called 'specs', short for specializations.  Each class has three distinct specs.  Of those 3 specs, one is generally for pvp, one is considered viable for 'endgame raiding', and the other is seldom used or is outright laughed at.  They change from expansion to expansion and patch to patch sometimes (as in which is good for what -- the names of the trees and their 'core talents' are unchanged).

Warriors are either dps or tanks.  Fury is DPS, and Arms is PVP DPS (damage per second).  Prot is threat-generation tank.
Druids are either dps, tanks, or healers.  They are unique in that their DPS spec can be ranged or melee, and the DPS tree changes based on their preference (Feral is both tank and melee DPS, depending on whcih 'talents' you pick -- individual powers and stat adjustments; Balance is ranged/caster DPS, and Restoration is healer).
Death Knights are tank or DPS.  They have two different DPS trees and one Tank tree.  It changes a -lot-, so I'm not sure which the current preferred is.  Blood, I think.

and so on.  All of the classes can do a 'choice' of at least 2 roles except for 4 -- the so-called pures.  They can only DPS.  The pures are: Rogue, Hunter, Mage, and Warlock.  They each have 3 DPS trees but, again, only 1 is considered 'viable'.  There are no pure healers and there are no pure tanks.

That's specs and roles in a nutshell.


While that's true, you can ignore spec roles unless you're playing the most recent endgame material.  I've seen hunters and warlocks use their pets to tank.  And tanks can do outrageous damage.  Even PvP specs, for the right classes, can make good strikers.


Hmm... "strikers", "tanks", "warlocks", etc.

That doesn't sound familiar at all. I can't imagine why anyone would make the comparison to 4E.


I used the word strikers because you said you weren't familiar with WoW.  The actual term is Dps (just like WoW uses tank and 4e used defender).  IIRC, there was a Warlock class for 3e as well.  Also, if you want to pretend that roles were new to D&D with the launch of 4e, then have at it.  Anyone familiar with the game knows how untrue that is.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Also, if you want to pretend that roles were new to D&D with the launch of 4e, then have at it.  Anyone familiar with the game knows how untrue that is.


Anyone care to answer the following question?

What does RPG stand for?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
A bit of outdated info here on WoW.



*poke* Who you callin' outdated? Smile

CLASS roles aren't rigid.  SPEC roles are.  Your choices of possible roles are set by class (for instance, you won't be a tank priest), but when you roll a priest you still get to choose Shadow or Disc/Holy (DPS or Healy/Healy).

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."


While that's true, you can ignore spec roles unless you're playing the most recent endgame material.  I've seen hunters and warlocks use their pets to tank.  And tanks can do outrageous damage.  Even PvP specs, for the right classes, can make good strikers.



There is a -lot- wrong with this statement.  Much too much to actually spend a post on.  However...allow me to say this: while, in a technical sense, what you say has moments of truth...it is as far from actual truth as the statement 'A book needs to be made with water' is.

I'm not trying to be mean or 'call you out' or any of that...just saying that it's pretty clear you don't play WoW.  And that's okay!



Actually, I do play it.  It's fun, mostly, but I get sick of the endgame crap.  That's one of the many reasons why I like D&D better: you don't run the same dungeons all the time, and D&D adventures are more fun that completing WoW quests.  If you want to pretend that I haven't seen the things that I've seen, that's fine.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Also, if you want to pretend that roles were new to D&D with the launch of 4e, then have at it.  Anyone familiar with the game knows how untrue that is.


Anyone care to answer the following question?

What does RPG stand for?



Can we be any more disingenuous?  That's not the ROLE they were referring to.  That's why there's that part about an ACTOR taking on a ROLE with no SCRIPT.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Sign In to post comments