Yeah, you can refine and add more details to a definition as you like - that’s my point. People are doing this even outside of the Wikipedia definition.
But the basic and core definition of RPG is very generic.
But even that definition you linked doesn’t prohibit systems from being flexible - like swapping specs, talents, or covenants. All of those things can exist and WoW can still be considered an RPG under that refined definition - but people will scream that doing so would violate THEIR further refined definition, and this is where the conflict arises. THis is why I don’t think using “RPG” as an argument makes any sense - everyone can have their own definition for the term, so no one is right or wrong.
It’s weak because there clearly has to be another reason why it’s good to have in the game in the first place.
That’s why I bring up the vendor that sells every item for 1 gold. Most of us here know why that would be a really bad idea, even if it is technically also optional. It’s an extreme example sure, but given a little time I could have an entire list of bad ideas that are optional.
So obviously something being optional isn’t enough for it to be a reason why it should be in the game. The idea should have merit beyond that people who don’t like it can ignore it.
For example, transmog is optional but it’s not the reason why it should be in the game. It should be in the game because it lets us have more variety in the way our characters look and it gives us a reason to run old content that would otherwise not be relevant anymore.
I actually agree with you that as long as Blizzard creates new xpacs that focus on story and world building that WoW will continue to be a RPG.
However, if Blizzard feels that turning WoW into a MOBA-like (and focusing just on the end-game raiding/competition) would increase their profits, and ignore/minimize the story/world building in WoW, then WoW would not be a RPG, and that would be sad.
So the argument I’ve heard from players wanting covenants to be flexible fits this - just replace “look” with “perform”.
And in making covenants flexible - you’re not removing the incentive to complete content and play the game the way making all items in the game would.
In fact - I think it would promote people playing more content. If they choose a PvE covenant for their ability - they would be less inclined to try PvP. But if they could switch, then they would be more likely to give PvP a shot when they’re not raiding or running M+.
Thanks for the response btw! I think you brought up some really good aspects of the game to reflect on. I like your example of items because I agree with you there - since that would remove the incentive to actually play the game with the rewards being easily accessible. But making covenants free to swap around wouldn’t have the same effect imo - I think it actually has the opposite effect - which in my eyes, anything that promotes players playing the game in various roles and formats is a good thing.
You’re very right, but it also seems so wrong, to allow players to switch Covenant abilities on the fly when the abilities come from the Covenants themselves, in a RPG way.
Having said that, I’m very grateful that we can change class specs on the fly, it improves the game greatly because of that.
Choices about your character build and how easy/hard they are to change.
Specifically how Covenants are designed.
The thing is that I want #1 to be choices that can’t be changed on a whim, but I think with #2 that Covenants still aren’t designed all that well. It’s better than nothing to me, but it could be so much better.
For starters, the power should come from the class, and the choice should not be “PvE vs PvP performance”. That’s not an interesting choice to me, that’s just asking what content I would like to focus on.
Numbers are obviously just made up on the spot, but an interesting choice to me would be being able to give up ~20% of my own DPS in order to buff up to 4 nearby allies’ damage dealt.
I’d also like to see talents have a bigger impact on how our specs actually play, with the stipulation that it doesn’t devolve into “This next boss benefits talents X, Y, Z so swap before the fight”.
Stuff like Surrender to Madness or Gladiator Stance are a lot of fun to me. I’d like to see more of that.
I don’t really agree with it seeming wrong. It seems very right considering the story.
If the covenants are so worried about the Jailer and wanting us to help kill him and fix things - then from an RP perspective, they should want us to be as equipped as possible to do so.
This is similar to times of war, like in Vietnam, when military members were allowed to switch branches to serve different roles. One of our Master Gunnery Sergeants in the corps used to brag to us how he never had to go through Marine bootcamp because of this - he swapped branches from the Army to the Marines.
So it’s actually VERY RP given that this happens in real life.
I can’t see how you can be a “good” character and belong to a “evil” group (covenant) unless you can work out a “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing, which then it would work out.
But we have to pick at least 1 covenant. It’s like enlisting for the military - you have to be in at least one branch that kills bad guys. All branches are working to overthrow the big bad guy that’s disrupting the Shadowlands because their existence is threatened because of that bigger evil.
Sure, there may be animosity, bar fights, and trash talk across branches - but ultimately they have a bigger threat that warrants working together and sharing members, resources, etc.
Fair enough, but comparing (for example) Americans and Soviet-era Russians having to work together is allot different than Angels and Demons haivng to, lore wise. But I do get your point.
yeah but if say we ran into an Independence Day type of alien invasion - cooperation between ANY human based militant force wouldn’t be unimaginable. At that point - wouldn’t we be willing to share resources in the short term with WWII Germany, Soviet-Era Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, etc - all to save the human race? This latter situation is where I think the Angel/Demon analogy is best connected - but if a threat comes into play that threatens both Angels and Demons - then perhaps temporary allegiance may best suit both of them.
Whether it’s cross branch collaboration vs other countries, or cross country collaboration vs an alien threat - this is how I would envision Covenants working together to overthrow the Jailer.
No I would not be accepting of that in the slightest classic exists. I like being able to play multiple areas of the game the game has moved that way for a good reason even before the current dev team. Again classic exists for that type of playstyle as does self control.
But since you like going to logical absurdities like your item attempt at a gotcha. I assume your character eats 3 times a day goes to sleep at night and only mounts in acceptable areas never in a city and only runs as much as would be logically possible in plate not much so largely rp walking.
You can still punish yourself to the extent you want if the covenants were freely changeable.
But then others who want to continuously think and strategize throughout the course of the expansion, across multiple content types, and across various roles - could do so as well.
A flexible system doesn’t prohibit you from playing as restrictive as you’d like.
All of this. It almost feels spiteful how players who aren’t partaking in harder content therefore aren’t having to worry about their Covenant choice aren’t even considering how it affects the other side and just saying “tough”.
Adding freedom means that I would play a lot more because I don’t feel like I’m at a disadvantage solely because of a power progression choice that seems to want to stay somewhat locked in.
You will likely never get anyone from the other side to understand how giving a character a choice that comes with pros and cons is keeping them from ‘performing at their best’. To many people giving players a choice like covenants in its current form is every bit as much of the character as their class. Players pick classes that have inherent pros and cons for certain content. They overall do not whine about X class is good or Y class is crap for Z content. I can not grasp the thought of another of your same class/spec performing differently than you being a bad thing. You perform in A content better but they perform in B content better… why is that such a bad thing? The class and spec differences are accepted already so why is another layer of choice not?
"