How to Make My Game Not World of Warcraft

[Raistlin1040]

As a first time DM who's run two (mostly successful) sessions, I've encountered a problem. I'm worried that my campaign doesn't have a unifying theme. In itself, this wouldn't bother me. But I'm storyboarding the campaign as best I can, and I'm a bit bothered by what I'm sensing. The party is near level 2 right now. At level 2, they will be encountering a Half-White Dragon named Malaius. His death brings the conclusion of the quest they've been pursuing since the campaign started. After that they're supposed to have a quest lined up, that will be interrupted by another quest, which leads to a fourth quest, and such. Each quest is considered an Arc.

I intend to have little arcs that focus on a single character's backstory. However, these little arcs won't yield enough XP for them to reach the level required to go to the next one. Because of this, there are in-between arcs that I've planned out in some small measure of detail in which they are petitioned by someone they already know, or a new acquaintaince, to solve a mystery. There's a Werewolf in town, find him and kill him. The Elven City looks peaceful and prosperous, but something's not right politically. There's a Vampire controlling the King, destroy him. A cult has taken up residence in an abandoned temple outside of town. They might be doing dealings with demons, find out what's going on and stop it.

I'm worried about the state of the campaign, story-wise, unfortunately. There are enemies that are supposed to be memorable, because they're important to the backstories of my players (The Wizard's Father, The Barbarian's Former Tribe Leader, The Priest Of Nerull Who Raised The Rogue). I want these characters to stand out in the minds of my players. I also want them to take the mini-bosses, if you will (Half-Dragon, Vampire, Werewolf, Demon), seriously. But I don't want the high number of named foes to be too much and turn the party away from roleplaying out encoutners, because for a group that hasn't played before, (except for the rogue), they're doing a great job roleplaying.

[AslanCross]

I think that if they're roleplaying well to begin with, then you're not really suffering from a WOW game. (I've never played WOW and don't intend to, so I'm not really sure what you mean by that.)

If you really want the villains to be memorable, give them outstanding features that make the players and the PCs remember them well. For example, in my first campaign I had a traitorous marquis who dressed overly ostentatiously and had long silver hair. The players were suspicious of him whenever he was around and eventually realized they had to confront him.

[Raistlin1040]

By the WoW game I meant just sort of endless questing without any perspective. I play WoW, but only for an hour or two a week, and I don't remember the quests I complete 30 minutes after I finish them and turn them in.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, add over arching elements, like reoccurring villains and plots within plots. And give the players characters influence in the world. By a certain level they will be richer then many kings, yet if you have people ordering them around just like at level 1, it feels hollow and static. The cleric could advance in the church hierarchy, changing how people view him. A fighter type could be granted a title by a grateful lord, allow them to use that land and improve it as they see fit. Make small changes to the world, have people congratulate them for saving them, even months after the event.

[JoshuaZ]

Have one of the villains turn out to be deeply involved in a larger conspiracy that you only find out about after the villain is dead. Maybe the priest of Nerull when he is being killed can make some last comment about how they can't stop the X, where X is something hideous sounding. They go on to the next villain, and then end up rescuing an NPC who knows something vaguely about the X. Have the X turn out to be something they need to stop for a final campaign (maybe summoning some really bad massive undead?).

The key is to just have little hints with a few minor aspects of the campaign that happen to end up coming together in a progressively more dangerous and ominous jigsaw.

(Disclaimer: I've never DMed)

[Raistlin1040]

@ Ravens: Well that's not going to be a problem, I hope. There's a bard they've met who, though poor and unknown, is a brilliant actor/writer/composer. I intend to have them sit down after each quest and talk to him, if he's around, and he's going to write an Opera or a Play or something about each adventure.

@V: 62

[Innis Cabal]

By the WoW game I meant just sort of endless questing without any perspective. I play WoW, but only for an hour or two a week, and I don't remember the quests I complete 30 minutes after I finish them and turn them in.

An aside, then your not very high level. The quests from The Burning Crusade on up are...very memorable. The Wrath of the Lich King espcially.

As to how to avoid it, if your players are role playing even a little then...well you've already avoided it. If not, encourage them to.

[Jack_Simth]

Let's see...

At this point, they're fighting little bad evil guys, right?

Just leave hints that everyone they take down is taking orders from someone else. Notes in the local evil guy's lair that basically amount to "Make this happen", where whatever the evil guy was doing fits the bill as a method to do so. Have them all unsigned, but have them all on the same type of paper (don't specify that it's the same type of paper, just use the same description of the paper every time), and in the same handwriting (likewise), and the same color ink (ditto). So each time they take down a bad guy, they find a note on his person (and only on his person - none of the people working for the local bad evil guy have any clue that the LBEG is not the BBEG), and when you describe the note, it's something along the lines of:

"The note is in an aged, yellow velium. The handwriting is a tall, tight cursive, in a dark red ink. On the back of the note is a printer's stamp: a symbol of a lion clutching a quill in it's paws."

If they investigate the symbol, that particular printer hasn't been in business for several millennium - a few venerable elvish scholars remember seeing it on books that had been handed down to (not from, to - NOBODY has a sample) their masters when the elvish scholar was very young, but they don't know anything about where it came from (these elvish scholars should be difficult to find, and they should all be close to death by old age).

Then, once the party is very high level and you're wanting to bring the campaign to a close, you introduce whatever critter that's suitable for an ancient evil, who's been taking the time to make the conditions right for a particularly old prophecy.

[Proven_Paradox]

I would suggest doing something to let the PCs actually see the difference they're making in the world. Something about WoW that's always been very unsatisfying to me is that the world never actually changes.

Way back with I was a level 20 human paladin* just starting to get into the worthwhile talents on the Protection line, I killed Van Cleef, and supposedly freed Westfall from the grip of the Defias, allowing the farmers to return to their land. I was called a hero of Westfall and got quests to take me into the next area, and left them to rebuild.

Now I come back at level 80, atop my epic warhorse... and find Westfall in the iron grip of he Defias, farmers being run out of their homes by all the threats I killed back when I was leveling. And furthermore, I'm running the low level alts of some friends through the Deadmines to kill Van Cleef. What the hell?

World of Warcraft can't change because there will always be low level characters, so everything you kill just respawns, and nothing gets done. If you want to make your world feel less like World of Warcraft while maintaining the basic quest-driven gameplay, the best thing you could do is show the players the consequences of their actions. Westfall goes from a mostly barren den of thieves to a productive farming community again, and that drives it home: this isn't WoW, this is DnD, and dammit, I actually matter to this world as a hero.

*Totally off topic side-note: I actually dislike the Alliance. But I like the paladin class. Meanwhile, I loathe blood elves. So, I stick with the lesser evil for my favorite class. Next expansion bringing us tauren paladins pleases me greatly.

[The Glyphstone]

^You'll like Cataclysm then. They've apparently decided that the 'phasing' code that they test-ran in WoTLK was a great success and plan to use it extensively in the next expansion.

[potatocubed]

See, I'd be inclined to just leave it as you've got it planned already. It's the 'spaghetti at the wall' method - throw a whole bunch of varied stuff at the players, see what sticks, and then play up those elements.

For example, if your players get a kick out of hunting and killing the werewolf then you can react to that with more werewolves and expand the plotline there. If they find it a bit meh, then you can drop it and move on.

This is superior to the WoW method because, with a real human GM, you can react to what the players like and provide more straight away. No need to data-mine or code extensive upgrades, just add more werewolves.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

What is World of Warcraft anyways?

[drengnikrafe]

What is World of Warcraft anyways?

I'm not sure whether or not to take this seriously, so...
It's an extremely streamlined, casual-gamer-based Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game that involves loosely thrown together story, and lots and lots of grinding for experience. IMO, anyway.

That being said, so long as you don't make your players kill the same monster over and over, or make them gather arbitrary items with no significance and only a chance of appearing, you should stay safe from this.

[AslanCross]

I'm not sure whether or not to take this seriously, so...
It's an extremely streamlined, casual-gamer-based Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game that involves loosely thrown together story, and lots and lots of grinding for experience. IMO, anyway.

That being said, so long as you don't make your players kill the same monster over and over, or make them gather arbitrary items with no significance and only a chance of appearing, you should stay safe from this.

Pharaoh's Fist never takes anything seriously. Except Fistbeard Beardfist.

[Optimystik]

Proven Paradox is right - the best way to make your game not feel like an MMO is for the players' actions to have a lasting impact on your setting.

Though Glyphstone is also right, and extensive "phasing" means that WoW may become quite good at doing that themselves.

[pasko77]

Pharaoh's Fist never takes anything seriously. Except Fistbeard Beardfist.

Or FATAL. He seems to like it very much.
*ducks*

[Gametime]

I'm inclined to agree with the previous posts; you'd have to go out of your way to make D&D as repetitive as World of Warcraft.

If you're worried, though, talk to your players and get feedback. Communication is important.

[Cyrion]

A generic statement of something a couple of posters have alluded to- one of the Genuinely Good Ideas of DMing- Let the players determine some of the adventures. As they develop their characters, they'll periodically give you hints regarding the character's ambitions and goals. Design adventures and quests that help them achieve these.

[Jayabalard]

^You'll like Cataclysm then. They've apparently decided that the 'phasing' code that they test-ran in WoTLK was a great success and plan to use it extensively in the next expansion.

Not necessarily. Garrosh is a tool.

By the WoW game I meant just sort of endless questing without any perspective. I play WoW, but only for an hour or two a week, and I don't remember the quests I complete 30 minutes after I finish them and turn them in.

While that's true of the vast majority of the quests, it's certainly not the case with all of them.

Even at low level you have quests like Lost in battle and it's followup/related quests. At high level, WotLK has several extremely memorable quests... the events leading up to the Wrath Gate and the retaking of undercity comes to mind rather quickly.

[Gametime]

Not necessarily. Garrosh is a tool.

I think I'm the only player so far to find Garrosh's extremist xenophobia to be appealing. Death to the Alliance! Crush their bones and burn their towns!

[ericgrau]

Plot, plot, plot.

Every monster right down to the goblins should have a motivation and plans. The PCs should be able to deal with them with or without violence and both should involve RP. Besides the diplomatic RP solutions I'm sure you know of, there is stealth, surrender, setting up ambushes and terrain, running away when things look bad, using the "treasure" for their own benefit, etc. For stealth and other such tricky options, look at the skill rules. Also make careful note the many methods of automatic success. A failed skill check screws you much more than a successful one helps, so if you include a chance of failure when you shouldn't it only encourages PCs to not bother with skills.

Cheat sheets including skill rules and combat modifiers for terrain are in my sig. For the motivation RP stuff, just use your common sense and put yourself in the monster's shoes. Oh and never ever make a challenge with a single pre-determined solution. Make a challenge according to what the monster's would do, and let the PCs invent their own solution. If you totally did not expect their tactics but it works, you're doing things right.

[The Glyphstone]

Not necessarily. Garrosh is a tool.

Of course, but now he'll be a tool (of the Titans?) in a semi-dynamic world where players can make permanent (to their perspective) changes.