World of Warcraft ruined D&D!

[Libertad]

A common theme on grognards.txt is quoting someone blaming pop culture elements of the new generation for ruining Dungeons & Dragons.  The two most common targets of rage are World of Warcraft and Japanese Anime and Manga.

The inflamed fan usually makes the claim that WoW provides instant gratification and cosmic power to players with no real effort, resulting in said players joining the D&D fandom and making demands on the designers for the game to be higher-powered and more like WoW.

I have to admit that I don't play WoW, but from what i heard it sounds like the best example of "Work for your Happy Ending."  According to WoW players, a huge amount of grinding and adventuring is necessary in order to get Real Ultimate Power.  The most powerful WoW players are the ones who spend the most time and effort playing the game, dedicating hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of gameplay to amass their awesome collection of legendary items and learn the most powerful spells/talents.

Or is the real explanation simpler, in that a lot of people just make the connection between "Blood Elf/Dranei" and "Eladrin/Tiefling" in 4th Edition?

[caelic]

Well, here's the thing:  in a sense, I think this is true.  It's just not at all the sense in which the people saying it mean it...if that makes sense.

Let me see if I can explain:

A lot of old-school players remember when tabletop games were THE thing.  For one brief, shining instant, our hobby was relevant, popular, and trendy.  Heck, it was even edgy and controversial and (dare I say it?) ...cool.

I think a lot of older players harbor the hope that tabletop games will regain their glory and their position at the top of the heap, and that's simply never going to happen.

The truth is that MMORPGs have ruined D&D and other tabletop games in one very specific sense: they've made them archaic and (to a majority of would-be gamers) obsolete.  Johnny Future Gamer is faced with a choice: he can memorize a stack of rulebooks, get together multiple friends, convince THEM to memorize those rulebooks, and then find three-to-six hour chunks of time where they can all get together and play.

Or, he can click on an icon on his desktop and be playing within five minutes or so of installing the game.

The convenience factor of MMORPGs is something tabletop RPGs just can't match--and, for a lot of gamers, that convenience factor means that MMORPGs are simply the superior option.  That's true no matter how much those of us who love tabletop gaming wish it weren't so.

The busy career-focused young professional who doesn't have much free time, but still wants to game?  The MMORPG meets his or her needs better.

The stay-at-home parent who would like to game, but has to squeeze it in in 30 minute chunks while the kids are napping?  The MMORPG suits his or her needs better.

The younger gamer who really doesn't want to spend a lot of time poring over rules?  The MMORPG meets his or her needs better.

Games like WoW aren't going to kill D&D or tabletop gaming in general.  They are going to do to them what tabletop RPGs did to tabletop wargames: relegate them to a corner as a small, niche hobby which is relatively insignificant in the big picture.

In fact, they've done that already.

Now: that being said, I think that the people who reflexively say, "WoW has had no influence on D&D!" are kidding themselves.  Yes, WoW has had an influence on D&D.  Of COURSE WoW has had an influence on D&D.  The designers of D&D, by and large, aren't idiots.  They know WoW offers a style of play that is extremely popular and attracts a MASSIVELY larger audience than D&D, and they'd like to cut off a piece of that pie for themselves.

So, no: the suspiciously similar elements in recent editions of D&D aren't just coincidence; they're a reasonable and reasoned attempt by a business to appeal to a larger audience...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Heck, there's also nothing new about the denialism.  Back in the 1970's, it was "D&D ripped off Tolkien!"  "No it didn't!  There's almost no Tolkien influence in D&D!"

The more things change...

[oslecamo]

Or is the real explanation simpler, in that a lot of people just make the connection between "Blood Elf/Dranei" and "Eladrin/Tiefling" in 4th Edition?

Not only that, but also the role division (tank=defender, DPS=striker, healer=leader) and even the art style (4e favors a lot more glowing stuff and big angular armors like you see more usually in Wow, no longer any pimp Kursks or scared Mialanees).

Then there's the even less subtle atempt at using DDI to turn D&D into an actual MMORPG, where you pay a monthly subscription for an online service and can make characters online, and there  were even rumors of being able to play 4e directly trough DDI if I remember correctly.

[caelic]

Then there's the even less subtle atempt at using DDI to turn D&D into an actual MMORPG, where you pay a monthly subscription for an online service and can make characters online, and there  were even rumors of being able to play 4e directly trough DDI if I remember correctly.

Heck with rumors: it was plugged heavily when 4e first came out.  Unfortunately (as they have often done in the past,) WotC bit off more than they could chew.  The closest they came was Gleemax, which never got beyond the level of glorified messageboard, and the Virtual Gaming Table, which came out LONG after it was promised.  We all know what happened to Gleemax, and now the VGT has gone the same route.

Not, mind you, that I blame them for trying to shift to a different profit model; they really had to take that risk, because there was no way they could keep selling enough books to maintain Hasbro-level profits. 

[Otto the Bugbear]

Full disclosure: I play World of Warcraft and I haven't played tabletop RPGs in about 3 years (for all intents and purposes). Prior to that I had been playing DnD since 1989.

caelic has it right. His list of reasons outlining the time investment, between reading and memorizing the books, scheduling game time, and so forth, make MMORPGs much more popular. And the cultural acceptance plays a huge part of that. DnD did have a brief shining moment where it was talked about as the cool thing to do. Well, one less nerdy or strange than previously. WoW surpasses even the level DnD achieved in this regard.

Perhaps I simply don't have the grognard gene in me because I simply don't see DnD as having been ruined by WoW. Things evolve, and gamers are not excluded from that, nor are their tastes. I see that WoW and other MMORPGs have changed DnD and I believe much of that change is for the better. The more time goes by, the more of the little inane bits of really old DnD get rooted out.

I was unpacking my books and opened up both the 1ed and 2ed DMG and flipped through them. My lord there is a lot of ridiculous stuff in them. There is such a wide range of stuff between the extraneous complexity and the 'Nintendo hard' bits and pieces that I simply cannot fathom someone defending some of it as good.

(On the other hand, I'm glad the grognards are up in arms about it. Especially the part where they proclaim they won't buy new books. At least that makes less chance of their views regressing the game back to the old style.)

[phaedrusxy]

Full disclosure: I play World of Warcraft and I haven't played tabletop RPGs in about 3 years (for all intents and purposes). Prior to that I had been playing DnD since 1989.

caelic has it right. His list of reasons outlining the time investment, between reading and memorizing the books, scheduling game time, and so forth, make MMORPGs much more popular.

And in my experience, when you don't even have time for MMORPGs, you then resort to PbP games.

[Otto the Bugbear]

And in my experience, when you don't even have time for MMORPGs, you then resort to PbP games.

Sure. Once someone takes the time to get the rules down, PbP could be less of a time-sink to play.

[Unbeliever]

I don't play MMOs b/c I can't stand the time commitment and the grinding.  The fact that Diablo 3 is modeled on them in that regard, in addition to some other things, is managing to strangle my enjoyment of that game.  So, the idea of calling them "instant gratification" strikes me as ignorance talking. 

I'd diagnose two reasons behind the Grognard "I hate WoW and anime, rawr!" sentiment.  First, is as the OP notes, you can trace a lot of 4E's design (and art direction) decisions to MMO-style mechanics.  I happen to not like the vast, vast majority of 4E's design decisions, and aesthetics for that matter, and I happen to think this was a huge blunder.  Render unto computer games what they are due, and render under tabletop RPGs what they are due.  That is, play to your strengths:  rather than parotting an MMO's games structure, a tabletop game should use mechanics and designs better-suited to it. 

And, that 4E just looks so much like WoW, which is funny b/c it's not like it's the only fantasy video game out there, is just salt in the wound. 

Second, I think characters start off feeling considerably more awesome in MMOs and in many computer games.  I think grognards, by definition (although I suppose I count as one ...) look wistfully back to OD&D and 1st/2nd Edition where a starting off character can be laid low by small children with rocks.  So, the idea of playing a guy who can cleave orc skulls asunder at 1st level just rubs them the wrong way. 

And, rather than actually articulate that, they brand it with the stigma of MMOs and say something to the effect of "kids these days." 

[caelic]

I'd diagnose two reasons behind the Grognard "I hate WoW and anime, rawr!" sentiment.  First, is as the OP notes, you can trace a lot of 4E's design (and art direction) decisions to MMO-style mechanics.  I happen to not like the vast, vast majority of 4E's design decisions, and aesthetics for that matter, and I happen to think this was a huge blunder.  Render unto computer games what they are due, and render under tabletop RPGs what they are due.  That is, play to your strengths:  rather than parotting an MMO's games structure, a tabletop game should use mechanics and designs better-suited to it. 

The aesthetics are a big part of it.  A lot of us grew up during a time period when the dominant aesthetic was what I'll refer to as "fantastic realism."  Yes, you'd have warriors fighting dragons, but the armor the warriors were wearing looked like real armor, the swords they were wielding looked like real swords, and the landscape in which they were fighting looked like a real landscape.  It had fantastic elements, but it was grounded in reality.

That's still (and always will be) my preferred aesthetic, just as my preferred aesthetic for fantasy is "logically consistent within the assumptions of the setting."  I don't like fantasy where inconsistency is explained with "Who cares, it's magic?"  Likewise, I don't like fantasy art, regardless of how well-rendered or technically proficient, where the proportions and details are exaggerated to the point of being patently unrealistic.  Giant shoulderpads that would cut your head off if you raised your arms straight up don't look cool and dramatic to me, they look goofy.  Likewise, one-handed swords bigger than the person wielding them just don't do a thing for me (except tempt me to make Freudian wisecracks.)

Again, strictly a matter of opinion...but, yes, I'd say that the replacement of that sensibility has something to do with the dislike many older players feel.

[Libertad]

I think that concerns over later editions (such as 4th Edition) taking elements from MMOs are a valid concern.  What works in Tabletop RPGs doesn't always work in video game RPGs.

However, the argument is hurt when some folks assign blame to younger generations and popular MMO RPGs instead of decisions by D&D game designers.  Wizards of the Coast is ultimately responsible for changes made to D&D.

[Bozwevial]

I think that concerns over later editions (such as 4th Edition) taking elements from MMOs are a valid concern.  What works in Tabletop RPGs doesn't always work in video game RPGs.

However, the argument is hurt when some folks assign blame to younger generations and popular MMO RPGs instead of decisions by D&D game designers.  Wizards of the Coast is ultimately responsible for changes made to D&D.

True, but I'd point out that they do so in response to market testing. World of Warcraft is staying afloat with millions of subscribers, and it's awfully hard to resist trying for a slice of that pie. The very fact that the market can sustain MMORPGs was a pretty big influence on their design for 4th edition--as said before, DDI and the virtual tabletop were a fairly transparent attempt to appeal to those particular advantages of online gaming.

[Prime32]

The aesthetics are a big part of it.  A lot of us grew up during a time period when the dominant aesthetic was what I'll refer to as "fantastic realism."  Yes, you'd have warriors fighting dragons, but the armor the warriors were wearing looked like real armor, the swords they were wielding looked like real swords, and the landscape in which they were fighting looked like a real landscape.  It had fantastic elements, but it was grounded in reality.

Y'know, apart from the chainmail bikinis...

[Braininthejar]

I always hated chainmail bikinis. Many things on the net manage to offend me but few make me nerdrage quite like a stripper with a sword.

[Unbeliever]

I think that concerns over later editions (such as 4th Edition) taking elements from MMOs are a valid concern.  What works in Tabletop RPGs doesn't always work in video game RPGs.

However, the argument is hurt when some folks assign blame to younger generations and popular MMO RPGs instead of decisions by D&D game designers.  Wizards of the Coast is ultimately responsible for changes made to D&D.

True, but I'd point out that they do so in response to market testing. World of Warcraft is staying afloat with millions of subscribers, and it's awfully hard to resist trying for a slice of that pie. The very fact that the market can sustain MMORPGs was a pretty big influence on their design for 4th edition--as said before, DDI and the virtual tabletop were a fairly transparent attempt to appeal to those particular advantages of online gaming.

As I noted, what works in an MMO or video game in general doesn't necessarily work in a tabletop RPG.  Kiting is barely tolerable in a video game, and would be even less so in a tabletop game.

I wouldn't lump in DDI and the virtual tabletop in the same category, though.  I'm talking about contorting game mechanics around an MMO without realizing how they might not be appropriate, which is sort of funny b/c MMOs tend to have among the worst mechanics of video games in general.  I'd be all for various mechanisms to make D&D easier to run.  It just so happens that all of WotC's attempts along those lines have been pretty abysmal. 

[Unbeliever]

I always hated chainmail bikinis. Many things on the net manage to offend me but few make me nerdrage quite like a stripper with a sword.

How else are strippers supposed to protect themselves?

[Bozwevial]

I think that concerns over later editions (such as 4th Edition) taking elements from MMOs are a valid concern.  What works in Tabletop RPGs doesn't always work in video game RPGs.

However, the argument is hurt when some folks assign blame to younger generations and popular MMO RPGs instead of decisions by D&D game designers.  Wizards of the Coast is ultimately responsible for changes made to D&D.

True, but I'd point out that they do so in response to market testing. World of Warcraft is staying afloat with millions of subscribers, and it's awfully hard to resist trying for a slice of that pie. The very fact that the market can sustain MMORPGs was a pretty big influence on their design for 4th edition--as said before, DDI and the virtual tabletop were a fairly transparent attempt to appeal to those particular advantages of online gaming.

As I noted, what works in an MMO or video game in general doesn't necessarily work in a tabletop RPG.  Kiting is barely tolerable in a video game, and would be even less so in a tabletop game.

I wasn't talking about mechanics so much as certain design philosophies. Magic items, baked-in roles, certain scaling elements, etcetera.

I wouldn't lump in DDI and the virtual tabletop in the same category, though.  I'm talking about contorting game mechanics around an MMO without realizing how they might not be appropriate, which is sort of funny b/c MMOs tend to have among the worst mechanics of video games in general.  I'd be all for various mechanisms to make D&D easier to run.  It just so happens that all of WotC's attempts along those lines have been pretty abysmal.

Those two things were more of a way to appeal to the convenience that MMOs provide. Online character generators, automatically updated errata, virtual tabletops--all of those things are very helpful game aids and also bring D&D closer to an MMO. But yes, WotC promised the virtual tabletop way back in, what, '06? And just now admitted they gave up on it?

[Jackinthegreen]

I always hated chainmail bikinis. Many things on the net manage to offend me but few make me nerdrage quite like a stripper with a sword.

How else are strippers supposed to protect themselves?

A sword sheath would help.

Wait, that's a different kind of stripper with a sword.

[veekie]

I always hated chainmail bikinis. Many things on the net manage to offend me but few make me nerdrage quite like a stripper with a sword.

How else are strippers supposed to protect themselves?

Charisma

Those two things were more of a way to appeal to the convenience that MMOs provide. Online character generators, automatically updated errata, virtual tabletops--all of those things are very helpful game aids and also bring D&D closer to an MMO. But yes, WotC promised the virtual tabletop way back in, what, '06? And just now admitted they gave up on it?

I hear Paizo is working on something like that as well.

Picking up stuff WotC messed up on and then making it sell seems to be a winning strategy!

[Bozwevial]

I hear Paizo is working on something like that as well.

Picking up stuff WotC messed up on and then making it sell seems to be a winning strategy!

So Paizo is the Apple to WotC's Microsoft?

[veekie]

Apparently yes. Its company wise, a pretty decent strategy, as they have an isolated user-base, so that if WotC launches first they still have an audience(if a smaller one). They also don't really have the capacity to make use of first mover advantage, so why not let WotC take the risks, and then work out what they need to make it acceptable.