|
haha! I just knew you were going to go there. You are correct sir. Because everyone knows two wrongs make a right in internet examples!Nope - I am in the "it may be a knock off but i just don't care" camp. It simply does not bother me that Gygax lifted hobbits straight from JRRT and it does not bother me that WotC may have lifted something from WoW. Happens all the time.
This.
I just can't seem to care.
I do it all the time. I kind of expect designers to do the same.
|
|
i've stolen so much stuff for my homebrew it isn't even funny. thank god i never intend on publishing it, i'd be buried in legal fees for the rest of my life...
the only problem i have with this appearing in FR is that they are borrowing concepts from ~either moorcock, inverness, WoW, some icelandic midaeval poem im unaware of~ while discarding most of 35 years of FR lore.
which, for me, is a completely different issue that whether borrowing is good or bad.
from the beginning of written history, everyone had borrowed from and built on what came before. fiction, religious tracts, sagas, epic tales, (heck, even "factual" history on occasion). it is the way of the world and a time honored tradition in story telling. truth be told, no one has had an original story idea in probably two thouand years. some old greek dude (name escapes me at the moment, aristophanes maybe? aristotle?) said there are only seven (i think) stories, retold a million different ways...
Soul gem,Warcraft did itD&D did it. It's called Ghost Tower of Inverness. Different concept, same name. It does steal its victim's soul and imprisons it.
Yeah, the point here is similar concept, stupidly similar name. Bad designer, no cookie.
|
Eh. Soulshard sounds cool.Warcraft already did it
Soulstone,Soul gem,SpellstoneWarcraft did it
MM 5 published Jul 17, 2007
World of Warcraft published Nov 23, 2004Warcraft did it.
Really, isn't this why editors get paychecks?
Owlbears. 'Nuff said. Oh, and as usual, I agree with Sebastian. This thread has nothing to do with 4th Edition, and everything to do with bad writing.
I think I'd like dragonshards better if they were made with real dragons. Sorta' like lemonade...and Girl Scout cookies.
|
|
Owlbears. 'Nuff said. Oh, and as usual, I agree with Sebastian. This thread has nothing to do with 4th Edition, and everything to do with bad writing.... (post too snarky - towards certain publishers - to post)
Oh, oops, I didn't even think of that. Before I get jumped on, let me clarify I meant the writing of the RPGs, not the writing of posters in this thread. I think we are allowed to criticize content and products, and even people, just not make insults towards them. Accusing a writer/company/product of having a pedestrian writing style isn't an insult, it's a criticism.
EDIT: Fixed some grammer; ironic in a post complaining about writing.
|
|
Stuff gets borrowed. It happens. Shardouls seem like a combo of WoW warlock pets and soulshards in one package. Thats not so bad.
Now if we start see harry potter knock-offs I might be pissed. lmao
For me, the issue isn't so much that it's a ripoff as that it's a really obvious, barely-concealed ripoff.
Books about wizards=okay.
Books about "Potter Harry"=bad.
|
|
Oh, oops, I didn't even think of that. Before I get jumped on, let me clarify I meant the writing of the RPGs, not the writing of posters in this thread. I think we are allowed to criticize content and products, and even people, just not making insults at them. Accusing a writer/company/product of having a pedestrian writing style isn't an insult, it's a criticism.Owlbears. 'Nuff said. Oh, and as usual, I agree with Sebastian. This thread has nothing to do with 4th Edition, and everything to do with bad writing.... (post too snarky - towards certain publishers - to post)
in that case, i've always found WotC to be at least proficient with the crunchy stuff, but, and i don't know if it is some sort of "milquetoast field generator" hidden in the closet, when it comes to the creative stuff (particularly adventures), i've always thought they were quite pedestrian. and it struck me as a strange circumstance considering the quality of talent they've had over the years they've owned the d&d IP...
although, even though it isnt my cup of tea as a setting, i did think the eberron stuff was pretty interesting all around...
|
|
in that case, i've always found WotC to be at least proficient with the crunchy stuff, but, and i don't know if it is some sort of "milquetoast field generator" hidden in the closet, when it comes to the creative stuff (particularly adventures), i've always thought they were quite pedestrian. and it struck me as a strange circumstance considering the quality of talent they've had over the years they've owned the d&d IP...
although, even though it isnt my cup of tea as a setting, i did think the eberron stuff was pretty interesting all around...
It could be that rules are rules, and you can have logical arguments to how they work or not, but fluff is entirely subjective (and probably a lot harder to playtest and conduct market research on). And I have found some of the stuff on their website to be interesting and well written, though admittedly not much lately.
Soul gem,Warcraft did itD&D did it. It's called Ghost Tower of Inverness. Different concept, same name. It does steal its victim's soul and imprisons it.
The concept of taking a person's soul and imprisoning it in a gem is also evident in the Tomb of Horrors. The idea is hardly a Warcraft original. In fact, prior to D&D you can find similar concepts in Moorcock's Elric saga. I am sure he gained the inspiration from someplace else. Where does the line begin and end?
Inspiration is garnered through exposure and that's okay.
Honestly, of all the issues with 4e one might come up with, this is ridiculous in the extreme. Attempting to prove the pedigree of conceptual ideas will only bring misery and frustration.
Anybody remember Babylon 5 and the Soul Hunters (1994)?
|
|
It could be that rules are rules, and you can have logical arguments to how they work or not, but fluff is entirely subjective (and probably a lot harder to playtest and conduct market research on). And I have found some of the stuff on their website to be interesting and well written, though admittedly not much lately.
i'm thinking that, when it comes to the more "creative" aspects, they might be trying too hard to be all things to everyone, and, as a result, fail to be much to anyone. too generic, too "careful" (almost triangulated), and, ultimately, completely devoid of anything interesting, as they seem like they don't want to make anything someone couldn't just "plug in" like a peripheral to any campaign.
I don't like WoW, and if they took an idea from it, oh well. The base town in the 4E DMG is call Fallcrest, and isnt there an island in WoW called Crestfall? Who cares. WoW wouldn't exist without D&D in the first place.
I'm looking forward to the new Realms.
We just converted our 12th level characters from the Age of Worms adventure path to 4E and will be continuing it soon. It's set in Eberron, which I think is an awesome campaign setting. I was playing a warblade (Book of Nine Swords) and now he's a 12th level fighter with the swordmaster paragon path and I like it so much better.
Another Soul Gem can be found given to Adam Warlock back in 1972.
I think this concept is hardly original.
Wait. Adam Warlock got a Soul Gem and WOW has Warlocks with Soulshards. So D&D is ripping off someone that ripped off someone else, big deal.
Another Soul Gem can be found given to Adam Warlock back in 1972.
I think this concept is hardly original.
Wait. Adam Warlock got a Soul Gem and WOW has Warlocks with Soulshards. So D&D is ripping off someone that ripped off someone else, big deal.
Isn't it more like they are all eating from the same archetype pie?
Isn't it more like they are all eating from the same archetype pie?
Yes. Yes it is.
I've got to say that I don't mind so much.
I want D&D to steal popular fantasy elements for inclusion into the game -- I want unicorns, wizards, trolls, magic swords, floating castles, and so forth. In fact, one of my criticisms of 4e has been the deliberate omission of popular fantasy elements in favor of purely-original material.
So, as far as I'm concerned, they can steal this. Even if it's rather amateurishly done.
|
|
Another Soul Gem can be found given to Adam Warlock back in 1972.
I think this concept is hardly original.
Wait. Adam Warlock got a Soul Gem and WOW has Warlocks with Soulshards. So D&D is ripping off someone that ripped off someone else, big deal.
Another good one. I had nearly forgotten about this. I really liked the Infinity Gauntlet storyline. Makes me want to dig out my old comics just to re-read the story. It might give me some inspiration.
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
I think you're selling WotC short here. There has been significant work done to make the Warlock and everything about them more generic then what exists in Wow and 3rd ediiton.
There no doubt that the Warlock of 4th edition is a combination of influences from the 3rd edition Warlock and the Warlock from Warcraft. But the OP has rather short sightedly jumped on the naming of things, Shardsoul/Soulshard, instead of actually looking at what it going on. The mechanics and lore behind these two things are completely different.
If you want to see what the Soul Shard concept became in 4th edition, then go flip to the Paragon paths for Warlock and look at the Life Stealer, who collects and uses Life sparks to power their abilities when they kill eneimies. That is what Soulstones evolved into in 4th edition.
The Warlock WotC has made in 4th edition is very different from both the Warlock of 3rd edition and Wow. It is an evolution, based upon what came before yes, but it is not a copy of them.
The very basic ideas of the Fey Pact and Star Pact Warlocks do not exist in either 3rd edition or WoW. Previous warlocks have always been demonic based warlocks. Now they're introducing warlocks which gain their power from a fallen meteriorite. That's pretty new compaired to what Warcraft has.
There are indeed powers based upon warlock powers in Warcraft. Curses and several individual powers are based upon various game powers. But what is wrong with that, exactly?
Fantasy games have been trading ideas like this back and forth from the very begining of gaming. The idea of a wizard raining fire down upon his foes did not get invented with the Fireball spell of first edition.
Ideas get traded back and forth in every area of life. People share, copy, rewrite, and improve ideas over time. Why are people so up in arms that WotC has done the same thing now? This is the evolutionary process of game development.
The Warlock is currently very closely tied to it's roots right now, because it's a new concept. That doesn't make it a bad concept.
Ideas get traded back and forth in every area of life. People share, copy, rewrite, and improve ideas over time. Why are people so up in arms that WotC has done the same thing now? This is the evolutionary process of game development.
I'd like to thank those of you in this thread with better geek fu then me, who have been able to point out all the various places the idea of soul shards has appeared over the years.
|
Yeah, the soulshards or shardsouls were probably lifted from WoW along with the slavish devotion to character roles (tank, dps, controller, healer), cool-downs (per encounter powers for 3.5 and 4.0), and level limits for maigc items. I'm sure I'm missing some. It's just a fact. You either like it or not. Even though I don't like WoW (I played it and found it to be dull as dirt), some similarities between it and 4E mechanics probably shouldn't be the sole reason to not like or play 4th edition. There are many other reasons to dislike or like it on its own merits.
... and level limits for maigc items.
There are no level limits for magic items, as they would be understood from a video game.
Cheers! :)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
... and level limits for maigc items.There are no level limits for magic items, as they would be understood from a video game.
Cheers! :)
You and your obsession with facts that are actually facts. Next you'll be pointing out that the concept of abilities needing to cool-down dates back to the 1d4 rounds between breathing for dragons, the barbarian's rage ability, or any number of WoD abilities that can be used once per scene, all of which predate WoW.
Wait! You know what else I realized. 4e stole hit points from WoW!!! OMG!!!! Those dirty thieves.
But, what can you do? Warcraft is a completely original game that was in no way based on any prior game or fantasy element, computer or otherwise, and all its concepts are wholly unique and original. It's the only possible source for so much fantasy flavor and game mechanics, none of which is itself based off prior ideas, that 4e can't help but steal from it. The more I think about it, the more I realize that not only is 4e based on WoW, but so is 3e, 2e and 1e!
There's only one explanation. WotC has a time machine which they purchased from TSR along with the other assets. They use that time machine to peer into the future to see what WoW will have and then incorporate those ideas into their products. The only reason we've noticed now is because the timestream has finally caught up so that D&D and WoW co-exist at the same time!!!
I have to admit, I LOL'd. :)
(Re: Time-Machine Theory - Oh my god! It all makes sense now! It all makes sense!)
I have to admit, I LOL'd. :)
(Re: Time-Machine Theory - Oh my god! It all makes sense now! It all makes sense!)
All we can hope is that their tampering with a time machine doesn't end up trapping us in a post apocalyptic nightmare filled with grey skinned, psychic cannibals after their girlfriend dies...
All we can hope is that their tampering with a time machine doesn't end up trapping us in a post apocalyptic nightmare filled with grey skinned, psychic cannibals after their girlfriend dies...I have to admit, I LOL'd. :)
(Re: Time-Machine Theory - Oh my god! It all makes sense now! It all makes sense!)
Only for you. The rest of us get cookies and popcorn.
Only for you. The rest of us get cookies and popcorn.All we can hope is that their tampering with a time machine doesn't end up trapping us in a post apocalyptic nightmare filled with grey skinned, psychic cannibals after their girlfriend dies...I have to admit, I LOL'd. :)
(Re: Time-Machine Theory - Oh my god! It all makes sense now! It all makes sense!)
I knew one day my evil ways would come back to haunt me. I should never have invented those time-shifting cyanide cookiees...
|
|
... and level limits for maigc items.There are no level limits for magic items, as they would be understood from a video game.
Cheers! :)
You and your obsession with facts that are actually facts. Next you'll be pointing out that the concept of abilities needing to cool-down dates back to the 1d4 rounds between breathing for dragons, the barbarian's rage ability, or any number of WoD abilities that can be used once per scene, all of which predate WoW.
Wait! You know what else I realized. 4e stole hit points from WoW!!! OMG!!!! Those dirty thieves.
But, what can you do? Warcraft is a completely original game that was in no way based on any prior game or fantasy element, computer or otherwise, and all its concepts are wholly unique and original. It's the only possible source for so much fantasy flavor and game mechanics, none of which is itself based off prior ideas, that 4e can't help but steal from it. The more I think about it, the more I realize that not only is 4e based on WoW, but so is 3e, 2e and 1e!
There's only one explanation. WotC has a time machine which they purchased from TSR along with the other assets. They use that time machine to peer into the future to see what WoW will have and then incorporate those ideas into their products. The only reason we've noticed now is because the timestream has finally caught up so that D&D and WoW co-exist at the same time!!!
Leave it to Sebastion to complete ignore or miss the whole point of my post and twist it to sound like a "They stole all of this from WoW!" rant. My point was that there are much better reasons to dislike or like 4E than the fact that some 4E mechanics seem to closely emulate things found in WoW. I still don't see how "You can't use this magic item until you are this level" rule isn't similar to the same rule in WoW. They may not have gotten from WoW, but it really doesn't seem to be something that fits in D&D. It's the DM's job to keep PC's from getting toys too powerful for the adventure, not some silly gamist rule that makes absolutlely no sense.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I still don't see how "You can't use this magic item until you are this level" rule isn't similar to the same rule in WoW.
Because there is no such rule in 4e. You're still operating off of outdated information from the previews several months back. It's your right to have an uninformed opinion, but it's not a sufficient basis for a comparison between 4e and WoW.
Anyway, time to turn this threadjacking back to the OP point.
"Mediocre Writers Borrow; Great Writers Steal" - Somebody who probably stole the line.
That's been one of the foundations of writing and all types of creation for a very long time. Everything that comes before influences what comes after, and this is especially true in writing.
Wow was influenced by D&D, D&D by Tolkien, Tolkien by Norse mythology and the Ring Cycle, and on and on back in time. It is very difficult to pinpoint where an idea first originates, like the concept of a time machine, unless it's a fairly new concept. And even then H. G. Wells would have had inspirations for his story, because while he is the person who came up with the idea of the time machine he did not invent the concpet of time travel itself.
Nothing we create exists in a vaccumm, and to deride the designers of 4th edition for taking existing concepts in the gaming industry, twisting them a bit and incorperating them into D&D makes no sense at all.
I've got to say that I don't mind so much.
I want D&D to steal popular fantasy elements for inclusion into the game -- I want unicorns, wizards, trolls, magic swords, floating castles, and so forth. In fact, one of my criticisms of 4e has been the deliberate omission of popular fantasy elements in favor of purely-original material.
So, as far as I'm concerned, they can steal this. Even if it's rather amateurishly done.
4th Edition still has all those things my friend.
I still don't see how "You can't use this magic item until you are this level" rule isn't similar to the same rule in WoW.Because there is no such rule in 4e.
You and your fact-based facts! :P
|
|
I still don't see how "You can't use this magic item until you are this level" rule isn't similar to the same rule in WoW.Because there is no such rule in 4e.
And to further support this statement:
PHB 223:
There’s no restriction on using or acquiring
items based on their level, except that you can’t use the
Enchant Magic Item ritual (page 304) to create an item
above your level. If, for some reason, your 10th-level
character finds a 20th-level magic sword, you can use it
to full effect.
I know it's too much to ask, but I hope this rumor just dies. A couple of initial previews seemed to indicate such a rule might be in place for rings, and rings only. Obviously they listened to feedback and removed that aspect of the magic item rules.
Edit: Ahhh....and I see Sebastian edited his response to help clarify.
What is it with you and facts? Don't you know that's anathema to good internet drama? Think of the children!
If that rumor dies, something else will take it's place. Since it was announced, people are going to continue to invent reasons not to like 4E.
If that rumor dies, something else will take it's place. Since it was announced, people are going to continue to invent reasons not to like 4E.
Wait! I think I found a new reason to dislike/like 4e!!
Because it's Thursday ....
|
|
I still don't see how "You can't use this magic item until you are this level" rule isn't similar to the same rule in WoW.Because there is no such rule in 4e. You're still operating off of outdated information from the previews several months back. It's your right to have an uninformed opinion, but it's not a sufficient basis for a comparison between 4e and WoW.
Really! I had heard it so many times, I thought it was a given. In that case, I admit that I am wrong and take back what I said. So I guess that they are just sticking with guidleines instead of "This ring is useless to your heroic tier character, but it's a ring of invisiblity if a paragon tier character wears it." That is refreshing news.
If that rumor dies, something else will take it's place. Since it was announced, people are going to continue to invent reasons not to like 4E.Wait! I think I found a new reason to dislike/like 4e!!
Because it's Thursday ....
Sadly that's actually less stupid than some of the anti-4E stuff I've seen.
|
|
If that rumor dies, something else will take it's place. Since it was announced, people are going to continue to invent reasons not to like 4E.
Well, I could probably hazard a guess as to one of the reasons people are so busy looking for parallels and borrowed ideas from Warcraft - because the designers themselves admitted they did. :P
Now, whether or not this is a good or a bad thing is entirely a matter of opinion, just the way that we can argue ad nauseam over the historical example of hobbits->halflings, or any other things that D&D has borrowed in the past from a variety of sources. We're not going to change each others' minds, and it's likely missing the point as to why a number of people really dislike 4th Edition.
I think the real reason why many D&D fans are unsettled/upset isn't so much because of the notion that ideas are being borrowed from World of Warcraft. Rather, I think it's because of the general feeling that WotC is paying less attention to the interests of the existing base, and focusing more on trying to woo the more stereotypical/theoretical WoW player, to the detriment of the existing fan base.
So where do they (I/we) get that impression? I can't speak for everyone, but I got it from a combination of comments made by the designers, particularly regarding the way they made so many sweeping changes to existing lore, both in the Core Game, and to the Forgotten Realms in particular, along with the general (different) feel that the game now has, that it did not in previous editions. As one of the employees at my local gaming store said when I asked him his opinion on 4th Edition, "It's a good game, but it doesn't feel like D&D."
Really! I had heard it so many times, I thought it was a given. In that case, I admit that I am wrong and take back what I said. So I guess that they are just sticking with guidleines instead of "This ring is useless to your heroic tier character, but it's a ring of invisiblity if a paragon tier character wears it." That is refreshing news.
Though even if they did do that, it wouldn't necessarily be stealing from video games, instead it would probably be stealing from an older source:
[quote=]"Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others."
-Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring [book]
I want D&D to steal popular fantasy elements for inclusion into the game -- I want unicorns, wizards, trolls, magic swords, floating castles, and so forth...
4th Edition still has all those things my friend.
I know. For once, I'm praising WotC for their work on 4e -- which (today) I mostly like :)
|
|
Really! I had heard it so many times, I thought it was a given. In that case, I admit that I am wrong and take back what I said. So I guess that they are just sticking with guidleines instead of "This ring is useless to your heroic tier character, but it's a ring of invisiblity if a paragon tier character wears it." That is refreshing news.Though even if they did do that, it wouldn't necessarily be stealing from video games, instead it would probably be stealing from an older source:
[quote=]"Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others."
-Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring [book]
I'd say there is a big difference between not having enough power to control a powerful artifact and a minor magical ring being a useless lump of metal to you until you become 11th level.
If that rumor dies, something else will take it's place. Since it was announced, people are going to continue to invent reasons not to like 4E.
People I know who dislike 4E aren't inventing reasons. They simply don't like it, and the reasons they cite are perfectly valid. It all comes down to a subjective perception in the end. Such as one person liking a novel and the other not liking it.
Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?It sucks?
While I am deeply saddened by the way WotC is conducting themselves (and impacting the game I love), I am no longer surprised by just about anything they do, what with their treatment of the Realms and my understanding of the GSL (and why a lot of companies aren't signing it). Apologists of WotC will continue to rally to the cry of "Well, it's a corporation, and corporations need to make money, right?" They act as if this mantra excuses and justifies any and all actions of the part of WotC, regardless of said actions' stupidity and the sense of alienation they impart to many (most?) of us. It is very clear at this point that WotC only cares about their bottom line, and are looking for ways to "win" by skyrocketing their profit, regardless of sustainability, without any understanding of their customers.
Profit seeking is not the end-all, be-all of a coporation. A business cannot be run as a simple equation with all the nice and neat variables in place, where if you do this, you will get that. Perhaps such a cold, mechanical approach works when your company is dealing only with other cold, mechanical entities (i.e., other large businesses). But that is not the case in the RPG business. Any company in this arena is dealing with individual people, real people, not plastic, herdable consumer-sheep. A truly viable company has to value, respect, and understand its consumers and its own product. WotC is looking for a quick revenue; flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-week economics. There's nothing substantial there, and certainly no connection with the people they are dealing with.
WotC pretty clearly assumes that we all are just those plastic, herdable people-sheep, dying to spend our disposable incoming on anything without discernment or discretion. They have no understanding of their own product, and no respect for it. It means nothing to them except a dollar...
While I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on capitalistic society, I think you're misguided, when you say that Wizards are only interested in money. That may well be the end product, but World of Warcraft was a success for many reasons amidst a whole bunch of MMORPGs, which didn't do the same thing as well. Clearly D&D had much to learn from the premier gaming brand and therein lies much of 4th edition's change in focus.
One of the biggest problems for D&D is that getting a group together is tough for most people. Therefore an on-line offering for D&D simply is a huge benefit to players and potential players, as there are so many more hundreds of players to link up with. So, creating a more modern game, building on market knowledge and with a vision towards long-term internet play, Wizards have done its consumers a big favour.
True, there will be some casualties and those people sticking with 3.5 are no less D&Ders than 4th ed players. If there are plenty of them (and James Jacobs seems to think there are), then they won't lose out in new products either.
So, all in all, there will be casualties, but many people like the new edition and I believe they will be able to mould it to their play style as they get used to it. Soon DDI will add even more options to gamers worldwide. Is this so bad?
Neh. Someone wake me up when one of the intelligent and worthwhile criticisms of 4e gets a thread.
There is not enough math. What self-respecting RPG does not have fractions?
Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?
Yes, Markus, D&D 4.0 is very, very close to WoW in feel and in the rules.
I wrote a bit about it on this site:
D&D 4.0 feels like Dragonball Z on a table top.
That said. I am not sure that I should be upset by that. It seems like that is what the new generation of gamers might want.
My group and I all played earlier versions of D&D. We earnestly tried 4.0 on several occasions. It is just not how we imagine a Fantasy RPG to be.
In service,