# From the WotC Boards:  Mearls on 'Aggro'



## M.L. Martin (Nov 10, 2007)

This got posted at the WotC boards yesterday, and I thought it might alleviate some concerns around here.  Here's the link if anyone wants the full context.



			
				WotC_Mearls said:
			
		

> Aggro in D&D is a big issue. In early drafts, there were much more explicit rules for it, where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe. All that stuff is gone.
> 
> First, it isn't fun playing the guy whose job it is to get beaten up. In early playtests, the fighter soaked up all the attacks and then.... soaked up some more attacks. It was the cleric problem, but even worse. At least the cleric doesn't take damage for spending all his spells healing other people. So, those mechanics went right out the window.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good.  Interesting that even the paladin's magic doesn't force someone to attack him.  Sounds more like Iron Guard's Glare than knight's challenge.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

For everyone concerned that 4E is too much like MMORPGs, this is Mearls explicitly saying they've rejected an MMORPG mechanic, because it sucked in D&D.

I do think that newbie DMs likely have a bit of trouble figuring out who a monster will attack. Heck, my players don't always seem to get that most monsters IMC tend to attack the guy who hurt them, instead of the well-armored guy beside him who can't hit the broad side of a barn.

This should be addressed through DMing advice and good example combats, though, and not through computer game-style AI.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

> If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy.



This reminds me of... I can't remember the name, some feat from PHB2, I think.  It gives a +4 bonus to attack rolls if your target spent their last turn next to you without moving away or targeting you with an attack or ability.  I wonder if something like that will be integrated into the 4e fighter.


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> This reminds me of... I can't remember the name, some feat from PHB2, I think.  It gives a +4 bonus to attack rolls if your target spent their last turn next to you without moving away or targeting you with an attack or ability.  I wonder if something like that will be integrated into the 4e fighter.




Agreed.  It sounds to me like Fighters get bonuses and free attack in order to bring the pain if you ignore them, and Paladins use the Crusader tricks of inflicting penalties if you pick a different target.  If so, it's a nice contrast of styles as defenders.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2007)

Y'know, I'm actually pretty happy that they test drove aggro mechanics.  Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound.  Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.

It is a neat set of mechanics for determining who gets attacked.  Unfortunately, the situation in MMORPG's and RPG's is different, so the mechanics aren't really portable.  

But, I'm much happier knowing that they tried this, and presumably a number of other ideas, before settling on whatever they've settled upon.  Shows that they're willing to try anything and use what works best, and not simply use what worked (or sort of worked) in the past.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'm actually pretty happy that they test drove aggro mechanics.  Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound.  Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.
> 
> It is a neat set of mechanics for determining who gets attacked.  Unfortunately, the situation in MMORPG's and RPG's is different, so the mechanics aren't really portable.
> 
> But, I'm much happier knowing that they tried this, and presumably a number of other ideas, before settling on whatever they've settled upon.  Shows that they're willing to try anything and use what works best, and not simply use what worked (or sort of worked) in the past.



Exactly my thoughts, expressed more clearly than I can at this point in the work week.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.




The ideal is an intelligent DM who's intelligent enough to separate his intelligence from the intelligence of his monsters.

Did I say that right?

If I'm DMing a group of dumb-as-posts monsters, they're going to focus right on the huge man chopping at their necks with the big sharp thing. If there are deadly arrows and magic spells blasting them from outside the melee, they're just going to assume it's another weapon the huge man is using. The smarter monsters will be able to adapt to such situations a bit better and answer them by, say, promptly gutting the wizard. If it's the frikkin-god-what-is-that from the Far Realms, I might use a dice roll to simulate its mindset.

Some DM's, unfortunately, won't make those distinctions. They'll have the best strategy in their own minds and assume the trolls can't do any worse. I certainly don't think rules-adjudicating that sort of thing is the answer. But there should be some advice for role-playing the monsters' intelligence.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound.



This is... debatable.  At best.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> For everyone concerned that 4E is too much like MMORPGs, this is Mearls explicitly saying they've rejected an MMORPG mechanic...




You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.

That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.
> 
> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.



Oh please.  They got into his brain, he tried them out, and he realized they don't work and stopped trying them.  You're talking as if MMO-thought is some kind of malevolent virus that taints everything it touches.  D&D4 is not going to have WoW-cooties on it, for chrissake.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 10, 2007)

I like that it gives the DM options, not restrictions.

"You CAN get through me and hurt the soft guy....but if you do, there's gonna be some consequences!"


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> MMO-thought is some kind of malevolent virus that taints everything it touches.




THAT's the turn of phrase I was looking for! Thanks.   
Yes, a malevolent virus.


----------



## Branduil (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.
> 
> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.



_Won't somebody please think of the game designers! _


----------



## Green Knight (Nov 10, 2007)

> Oh please. They got into his brain, he tried them out, and he realized they don't work and stopped trying them. You're talking as if MMO-thought is some kind of malevolent virus that taints everything it touches. D&D4 is not going to have WoW-cooties on it, for chrissake.




Circle circle, dot dot, now I got my cooties shot!


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.
> 
> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.




He already test-drove WoW-like mechanics in_ Iron Heroes _ and you never hear people say _IH_ is 'too video-gamey'. The entire mechanic where one or two classes 'build up' to a really massive attack is _exactly _ how rogues work in WoW. Or it could just be the idea that game designers are going to think along certain similar lines when they get to thinking 'OK, standing there and hitting people gets the job done but it gets dull after you do it for four hours. What can we do to change things up?'/


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

We need to bring him to the WOWCVC -- World Of Whatever Cootie Vaccination Center. I remember something like that back in middle school. Worked really well; I'm still cootie-free to this day. But that was generic cooties. No one could have foreseen this horrendous plague.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> He already test-drove WoW-like mechanics in_ Iron Heroes _ and you never hear people say _IH_ is 'too video-gamey'. The entire mechanic where one or two classes 'build up' to a really massive attack is _exactly _ how rogues work in WoW. Or it could just be the idea that game designers are going to think along certain similar lines when they get to thinking 'OK, standing there and hitting people gets the job done but it gets dull after you do it for four hours. What can we do to change things up?'/




1. Why so much energy expended to defend WoW-think?
2. If players are doing the same dull thing for four hours instead of being involved a decent game of D&D, then testing and/or introducing an online gaming concept isn't going to help. That's a personality glitch.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 10, 2007)

> 2. If players are doing the same dull thing for four hours instead of being involved a decent game of D&D, then testing and/or introducing an online gaming concept isn't going to help. That's a personality glitch.




What?

...wait....

What?

Doing the same dull thing for four hours (playing a dull game of D&D) is exactly what testing online gaming concepts in D&D is supposed to alleviate, since people do spend hours...days...playing WoW, obviously not considering it a dull thing (or, at least, more fun than a dull game of D&D). 

Purity is a worthless concept. Beg, steal, and rip-off whatever systems work well. If they come from videogames, from literature, from movies, or from monopoly, who cares, as long as they work well?

Obviously MMO-style aggro doesn't work that well in D&D. Mostly because standing there getting wailed on and dictating actions are things that aren't a whole lot of fun in most cases. In an MMO, a defender in combat is constantly juggling the attention of the monster, giving them something to occupy their mind while they fill their role. A compulsion to attack isn't as exciting in a round-based combat system like D&D uses.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Doing the same dull thing for four hours (playing a dull game of D&D) is exactly what testing online gaming concepts in D&D is supposed to alleviate...




Yeah, I'd agree ... _except_ that D&D wasn't dull to begin with. There's nothing to alleviate.
Which means that they're testing online gaming concepts for the sheer sake of trying to make the game more online game-ish.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> That's a personality glitch.



Speaking of personality glitches . . . tilting at MMO-windmills surely qualifies as one.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 10, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Speaking of personality glitches . . . tilting at MMO-windmills surely qualifies as one.




Oh dear gawd -- those games have windmill monsters, too?! That's just weird.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 10, 2007)

> Yeah, I'd agree ... except that D&D wasn't dull to begin with. There's nothing to alleviate.
> Which means that they're testing online gaming concepts for the sheer sake of trying to make the game more online game-ish.




"Dull" is a highly relative term. I'm reminded of "20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours." 

They're testing online gaming concepts for the sake of making more of those 4 hours fun. Or to make them MORE fun if they're already fun. 

But by all means, if your game is a perfect alchemy resulting in an ideal gaming experience for you and your friends, don't go into 4e. Me, I'd like to cut some of 3e's chaffe and make high-level combat work smoothly and have a shallower arc of power and have powers that regenerate in every encounter and have roles for combat and social encounters and everything else.

I imagine the development team believes that they'd like to do some of the same things.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd agree ... _except_ that D&D wasn't dull to begin with. There's nothing to alleviate.
> Which means that they're testing online gaming concepts for the sheer sake of trying to make the game more online game-ish.



On the off chance that you're trolling, Senor Driddle, please stop. This isn't what we need right now.

Thanks. Ping me if you want to discuss it.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> For everyone concerned that 4E is too much like MMORPGs, this is Mearls explicitly saying they've rejected an MMORPG mechanic, because it sucked in D&D.




Yes, apparantly they initially set out to make a video game.  Gradually they are coming to thier senses.  I hope it isn't too late.

I'm reminded of mid-production script changes to the Lord of the Rings movies.  Initially PJ set out to tell a story radically different from the books.  Eventually they realized that this wasn't working out as well as they hoped, and they started moving them back toward the originals.  (We have Christopher Lee, true geek hero, to thank in part for that.)  Still, while realizing the error of your ways is admirable, it would make me more comfortable if they'd never attempted it in the first place.  

Mearls, remember when you said in that interview that an RPG should never tell the players how to play it?  _You were right!_.  Remember when you said that 2nd edition showed you how not to make a game, because it mostly wanted take out the parts that the designers didn't think were fun.  _You were right about that too!_  Put down the saw!  Stop amputating things and start fixing things.   If there could be a bit less, 'We are taking this out because it isn't fun.', and a bit more, 'How can we make this more fun for the players who like it?', I might actually come around to 4e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, apparantly they initially set out to make a video game.  Gradually they are coming to thier senses.  I hope it isn't too late.



That's the negative interpretation. The fairer interpretation is that they were open-minded and willing to try out mechanics that work in another medium, to see if they work in D&D. Finding one that didn't, they dropped it.

It would be shortsighted and counterproductive to say "we can't try that, that's like a video game". This has nothing to do with coming to their senses. They were trying new things, dropping what didn't work and keeping what did. That just shows they're doing their jobs properly.

Rejecting a MMO concept out of hand simply because it's a MMO concept is as bad as adding a MMO concept just because it's a MMO concept.


----------



## Mortellan (Nov 10, 2007)

Amazing comments from Mearls. It's not good that they need more justification for their design plans. This one is reassuring but still troubles me as to what is next. So far I'm still leaning away from 4E but there is plenty of time for them to make this work.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> This is... debatable.  At best.



Well, it depends on the MMORPG, and even then, good dev teams continue to refine it over the life of the game.

The problem is that, currently, AI can't be made smart enough to react intelligently in an MMORPG, especially when there might be thousands or even millions of combats going on simultaneously.

So we get aggro instead, where offensive things add a set number of points, and the player character with the highest point total "wins."

I'm as eager as anyone to see this replaced with better AI, but until we see a LOT more processing power, both server side and on user end, I don't think it's likely to be showing up any time soon.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Still, while realizing the error of your ways is admirable, it would make me more comfortable if they'd never attempted it in the first place.



Why?

I prefer my designers -- whatever the game -- to try anything that looks like it might be a good idea and to ruthlessly reject any that don't, whatever their source, even from previous editions.

The day the designers start refusing to even countenance certain design possibilities, it's time to get new designers.


----------



## Mortellan (Nov 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That's the negative interpretation. The fairer interpretation is that they were open-minded and willing to try out mechanics that work in another medium, to see if they work in D&D. Finding one that didn't, they dropped it.
> 
> It would be shortsighted and counterproductive to say "we can't try that, that's like a video game". This has nothing to do with coming to their senses. They were trying new things, dropping what didn't work and keeping what did. That just shows they're doing their jobs properly.
> 
> Rejecting a MMO concept out of hand simply because it's a MMO concept is as bad as adding a MMO concept just because it's a MMO concept.



 Very true, I think what is at stake here is being the lead in innovation. People say D&D inspires this and that game, now the tables seem to be turned. IMO what was great about 3e's design was the introduction of feats. What will be the feat of 4e?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Very true, I think what is at stake here is being the lead in innovation. People say D&D inspires this and that game, now the tables seem to be turned.



Inspiration comes from _somewhere_. No one sits around in a dark room, waiting for it to strike.

Well, other than Michael Keaton in Batman Returns, but that was silly.



> IMO what was great about 3e's design was the introduction of feats.



*cough* inspired by Diablo *cough*


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 10, 2007)

Incidentally, the Original D&D rules encouraged the DM to have certain monsters decide what to do against PCs based upon their Charisma scores. Low Charisma, monster wants you dead; high Charisma, monster wants you as a prisoner. In a round-about way, that suggestion implies that monsters will direct their deadliest attacks against characters with the lowest Charisma. In other words, if you squint at Original D&D and turn it kinda sideways, it already has a crude aggro mechanic built in.

So why not playtest full-blown, modern day aggro mechanics? In my mind, it's fairly obvious that they're rather useless in a pen and paper game, but does it really hurt for game designers to confirm that guess with a few good trial runs?


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Rejecting a MMO concept out of hand simply because it's a MMO concept is as bad as adding a MMO concept just because it's a MMO concept.



This is very true.  On the other hand, though, I'm a little disheartened to hear that they didn't reject the aggro concept out of hand for being freakin' stupid on its face...



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Well, it depends on the MMORPG, and even then, good dev teams continue to refine it over the life of the game.
> 
> The problem is that, currently, AI can't be made smart enough to react intelligently in an MMORPG, especially when there might be thousands or even millions of combats going on simultaneously.
> 
> ...



Obviously good AI is processor-infeasible, but aggro doesn't even try to emulate what a good AI would do.  It doesn't consider how vulnerable targets are, even when some are drastically more fragile than others.  And the entire aggro concept was developed specifically so it could be artificially manipulated by taunt skills.

Guild Wars is an example of MMO mob AI done better than the usual aggro concept, and it's very rudimentary.  Monsters tend to attack whoever's nearest, but also have a rudimentary sense of which characters are easier to kill and sometimes break off to attack those characters.  Getting them to attack the warrior instead of the spellcasters is done by having the spellcasters run away when it gets close and the warrior stand in its way or use attacks that impede its movement.  No taunting or other such nonsense at all.

(I'll certainly admit that tanking in WoW can be fun.  But it's not the kind of fun that belongs in a roleplaying game, because the in-game situations it leads to are painfully silly.)


----------



## Mortellan (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *cough* inspired by Diablo *cough*



 Well I'll be...I didn't know that, but I had a feeling someone would know where feats came from so I threw it out there. Now knowing this I see absolutely no reason to be coy in saying that 4E will be partly inspired by video games as well.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> In my mind, it's fairly obvious that they're rather useless in a pen and paper game, but does it really hurt for game designers to confirm guess that with a few good trial runs?



When you put it that way it does sound a lot better.  I guess my concern is that they may have actually expected it to work, which would not speak well of them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> And the entire aggro concept was developed specifically so it could be artificially manipulated by taunt skills.



Eh, it was developed specifically so monsters wouldn't just attack whoever was closest. In subsequent games, the mechanic has taken on a life of its own, but the original idea was to have monsters act a little smarter than "guy nearby, me attack" while getting plinked (or even outright blasted) from a distance.



> (I'll certainly admit that tanking in WoW can be fun.  But it's not the kind of fun that belongs in a roleplaying game, because the in-game situations it leads to are painfully silly.)



Pfft, it's not half so silly for the tanks as it is for the hunters flopping up and down on the ground like they're having a seizure (replace hunters with monks and necromancers in EQ1), as though the monster is supposed to say "oh, they just dropped dead suddenly, NO problem!"


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Obviously good AI is processor-infeasible, but aggro doesn't even try to emulate what a good AI would do.  It doesn't consider how vulnerable targets are, even when some are drastically more fragile than others.  And the entire aggro concept was developed specifically so it could be artificially manipulated by taunt skills.




No agro doesn't take into account vulnerability much(they usually take into account distance though).  All it pays attention to is threat.  How much is this target effecting me.  Now wizards etc. create high threat by doing lots of damage. But things like sunder armor in wow create a lot of threat as well hopefully more than the DPS classes.  

That isn't that illogical though debuffs can jack you up.  If a fighter had an ability in D&D to destroy protection so for the next 2 rounds all physical damage against you was doubled.  You'd see him as a big threat to be dealt with fast.

Now I agree forcing the issue with mmorpg agro rules is a bad idea in a pen and paper game and that should of been obvious from the get go.  But the idea of threat isn't a bad idea.  Give the fighters abilities so its a good tactical idea to deal with them first and ignoring them to go through the ranks at the mage is a really bad idea.  Sure in some cases it will still be done and might be the right decision, but by giving fighters super threatening abilities you can create "agro" control by just making it so the DM playing the monsters as he should will attack the fihgter.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Mearls, remember when you said in that interview that an RPG should never tell the players how to play it?  _You were right!_.  Remember when you said that 2nd edition showed you how not to make a game, because it mostly wanted take out the parts that the designers didn't think were fun.  _You were right about that too!_  Put down the saw!  Stop amputating things and start fixing things.   If there could be a bit less, 'We are taking this out because it isn't fun.', and a bit more, 'How can we make this more fun for the players who like it?', I might actually come around to 4e.




This is my only worry about 4e.  Yes X was bad in 3e, that doesn't mean remove X it means fix it.  Stop throwing the baby out with the bath water because you screwed it up in 3e.  Just fix it, keep it but fix it.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> No agro doesn't take into account vulnerability much(they usually take into account distance though).  All it pays attention to is threat.  How much is this target effecting me.  Now wizards etc. create high threat by doing lots of damage. But things like sunder armor in wow create a lot of threat as well hopefully more than the DPS classes.
> 
> That isn't that illogical though debuffs can jack you up.  If a fighter had an ability in D&D to destroy protection so for the next 2 rounds all physical damage against you was doubled.  You'd see him as a big threat to be dealt with fast.



But it _is_ illogical, because ultimately the things the tank is doing are nowhere near as threatening as what the DPSers are doing.  Not to mention the healers.  It doesn't take a tactical genius to realize that you can kill the tank much faster if you first kill the extremely fragile guy who's constantly healing him.



> Now I agree forcing the issue with mmorpg agro rules is a bad idea in a pen and paper game and that should of been obvious from the get go.  But the idea of threat isn't a bad idea.  Give the fighters abilities so its a good tactical idea to deal with them first and ignoring them to go through the ranks at the mage is a really bad idea.  Sure in some cases it will still be done and might be the right decision, but by giving fighters super threatening abilities you can create "agro" control by just making it so the DM playing the monsters as he should will attack the fihgter.



That's, um, not an aggro system you're describing there.  The whole point of an aggro system is that it shortcuts the design work of making "attack the fighter" a reasonable option and just makes the monsters do it anyway.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good.




Yeah, on one side it's scary to think that they were even considering it...   

But, on the other side I'm actually glad that they tried it, so they had the proof that it was going to be a failure. Otherwise we would have had proponents of it for the next few years


----------



## Nifft (Nov 10, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.
> 
> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.



 I don't play MMORPGs. Not even once. However, just from your post I note that:

1/ *You* notice and understand the term "aggro".

2/ Being able to see and understand the term "aggro" is a bad thing.

Is this accurate? I ask as an outsider.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zaister (Nov 10, 2007)

Er, I feel stupid to ask, but since I don't play MMORPGs I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is an "aggro"?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 10, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> Er, I feel stupid to ask, but since I don't play MMORPGs I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is an "aggro"?




Aggro is a term for a game mechanic which helps the game decide which character an AI monster attacks.  

In general in MMORPG's, you want the Tank (or defender in 4e terms) to be on the top of the aggro list so that the plate wearing guy with the shield is taking all the hits that would otherwise 1 shot or 2 shot other party members.  

Tanks generate aggro through taunts, sundering armor, and other special abilities.  If someone pulls "aggro" off the tank, the monster then comes over and whacks the other character instead.  Usually a bad thing causing wipes in the game.  Healing, damage done (DPS), and special abilities all cause aggro on a monster's list as well.  The trick is for the tank to generate as much aggro as possible while the DPS deals as much damage as possible without drawing aggro off the tank.

Hope this helps.


Personally, I'm glad they tried it out, and I'm interested in seeing where they're going instead, since I tended to have my NPC's go after what they perceived as being the biggest threat depending on their INT. score.  So yeah, the wizard gets whacked alot if they're dealing with 15+ Int NPCs.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Mr. Wilson said:
			
		

> Hope this helps.



Using MMO jargon to explain something to someone who's not familiar with MMORPGs may not be the best approach. ^_^

"aggro" refers to the way monsters in an MMO decide which player to aim their attacks at.    Generally speaking, whoever hits the monster first will be the first one attacked, but during the fight the monster keeps track of who's damaging it the most and will switch targets based on those "threat" ratings.  If one of the players is healing other players, that also increases the healer's threat rating.  Warrior-type classes are typically designated as "tanks", meaning that they have enough durability to withstand the monster's attacks, and it's their job to make sure the monster attacks them instead of more vulnerable players.  Since they can't do anywhere near as much as damage as the classes whose job it is to do damage, they instead use abilities that raise their threat rating directly, which tend to have names like "taunt".  Sometimes they have attacks that deal a small amount of damage or debuff but cause extra threat.

Essentially, it's a clumsy, narrative-breaking rules system intended to let characters do the meatshield thing in games that don't have meaningful positioning.


----------



## Zaister (Nov 10, 2007)

Thanks for the explanation. 

Sounds awfully mechanical and restricting somehow though, for a tabletop RPG. So I think I'm in favor of not having this in D&D. Of course, one could always ignore such a rule.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 10, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> Sounds awfully mechanical and restricting somehow though, for a tabletop RPG. So I think I'm in favor of not having this in D&D. Of course, one could always ignore such a rule.



Luckily, you won't have to do that, since the WotC designers already considered an aggro mechanic, ditched it because it wasn't going to be fun, and went with something different.

Edit: And as others have said before me, _I'm glad they tried it_. If there's something I don't want the 4e designers doing, it's ignoring potential ideas and sources of ideas just because of some desire for "pure D&D" (as if such a thing has ever existed!).


----------



## carmachu (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good.  Interesting that even the paladin's magic doesn't force someone to attack him.  Sounds more like Iron Guard's Glare than knight's challenge.





And again, seems to even MORE confirm that 4e is/was moving towards MMORPHs.....

scary.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Essentially, it's a clumsy, narrative-breaking rules system intended to let characters do the meatshield thing in games that don't have meaningful positioning.



Like morale, that gives DMs who don't know how to run monsters a chance to run them more realistically?

Eh, aggro is for me morale in reverse. I'm happy to see morale gone, I'm happy to see no aggro, though I liked that they gave it a try.

I rather have a team that tries MMORPGisms than one that tries to preserve D&D from everything MMORPGish - because, after all, a team willing to experiment is a requirement to get innovation. Even if they try stupid things.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2007)

carmachu said:
			
		

> And again, seems to even MORE confirm that 4e is/was moving towards MMORPHs.....
> 
> scary.



No. It confirms that the designers are looking carefully in possible mechanics and test out whether they work for the game. Some of them might come from online games, some of the might come from other pen & paper game systems. 
If a game is very succesful, you should figure out what makes it so succesful, and steal the things that will work in your own game. Some mechanics might turn out to work only in the original game, others might work with your own game.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 10, 2007)

For those not familiar with MMOs, the term "aggro", etc...

Just want to point out, there is a reason that abilities like "Taunt" and the "aggro" mechanic in MMOs does NOT work in PvP ("player vs player" rather than "player vs NPC").  It would not be fun to force one player to attack another player just by clicking a Taunt button.  So this mechanic is disabled in MMOs when you are fighting against other players, because there is someone behind the wheel of that player, making the decissions.  Versus an AI controlled NPC who can't "think" for themselves.

This also reminds me of the debate for social skills.  PC social skills vs. an NPC is a good way to dictate the NPCs actions.  Either, if the DM doesn't know how the NPC should act OR if the DM doesn't want the NPC to volunteer info, but wants the PCs to have a chance to get the info from the NPC.  That is how I see social skills primarily being used.  But PC vs PC or NPC vs PC should not have the same parameters when it comes to social skills.  You shouldn't be able to *force* a PLAYER to act in a certain way just because you rolled really high on your Intimidate skill.


----------



## wayne62682 (Nov 10, 2007)

I don't get it.  The way "aggro" seems to work is exactly how every D&D game I've played has had monsters behave - They beat up whoever is doing the most damage to them (typically whomever hit them last, but not always), and if smart enough try to hurt the healer if he's healing people.  That's how it's always been for me.

Is the complaint because aggro is forced/intrinsic, instead of just the DM choosing to run a monster like that?  I haven't played any MMORPG, but I'm aware that there are set tactics that revolve around aggro.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 10, 2007)

Game designers acknowledge that game design doesn't happen in a vacuum?

Not seeing the controversy here, sorry.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 10, 2007)

By the way, has anybody read that snippet on the paladin's "Divine Challenge" in the text:


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> However, his ability does not say that the monster must attack him. It makes it a better option, but doesn't eliminate other options.




Looks interesting - it seems "Divine Challenge" is more one of the lose-lose scenarios of the Bo9S crusader!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, apparantly they initially set out to make a video game.  Gradually they are coming to thier senses.  I hope it isn't too late.




Or they aren't so arrogant as to think that D&D couldn't possibly learn something from a game with almost 10 million active players. I wish the gamers on this forum would do the same.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 10, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  The way "aggro" seems to work is exactly how every D&D game I've played has had monsters behave - They beat up whoever is doing the most damage to them (typically whomever hit them last, but not always), and *if smart enough try to hurt the healer if he's healing people*.  That's how it's always been for me.




Well, that is the issue with MMOs.  The NPCs aren't smart enough, unless run by an actual person.  So they have to be scripted.  Which makes them predictable, unlike a GM controlled NPC.



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Is the complaint because aggro is forced/intrinsic, instead of just the DM choosing to run a monster like that?  I haven't played any MMORPG, but I'm aware that there are set tactics that revolve around aggro.




I think that is the major gripe.  If the GM WANTS the NPC to go after the Wizard, but the Paladin has an ability to force the NPC to attack him instead, apparently that is a bad thing.

Think of the reverse...  You as a player want to go after an enemy Wizard, but his body guard has an ability to force you to attack him instead.  Suddenly, you are no longer in control of your own choices.  Might as well hand your character sheet to the GM and let him run the character...


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 10, 2007)

Agro management 101, Stay oustide of the monsters invisible "Agro line"

Source


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good.  Interesting that even the paladin's magic doesn't force someone to attack him.  Sounds more like Iron Guard's Glare than knight's challenge.




My sentiments pretty much.  Glad they were wise enough to get rid of this idea.  Somewhat worried that they considered it seriously in the first place, but not too worried in any case.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That's the negative interpretation. The fairer interpretation is that they were open-minded and willing to try out mechanics that work in another medium, to see if they work in D&D. Finding one that didn't, they dropped it.




Sure, it's a negative interpretaton.  Doesn't mean it's not "fair," though.  It's just more pessimistic.

My question is why would they even want to consider a mechanic that would take away so much choice in the game....


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Inspiration comes from _somewhere_. No one sits around in a dark room, waiting for it to strike.
> 
> Well, other than Michael Keaton in Batman Returns, but that was silly.




Indeed.




			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *cough* inspired by Diablo *cough*




I thought it was more inspired by Fallout, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> But why would they even want to consider a mechanic that would take away so much choice in the game?




*Simple*

Because the "bodyguard" role that I'd wager is one of the most common roles in fiction just DOES NOT WORK in D&D. Unless you are in a corridor with your charge behind you, there was nothing preventing the enemy from simply ignoring you (sure, in 3E, you eat an attack of opportunity but the tradeoff...in D&D before AoO? There's nothing for the enemy to worry about).

The thing is, in fiction, this doesn't happen. The enemy can't ignore the bodyguard due to the "one hit, you're dead" feature of most fiction.

The aggro mechanic was created to try and get this _COMMON_ role in fiction to actually work.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2007)

Why do people seem to think that this is the first time this has come up.  The Knight's Challenge is pretty much aggro mechanics for D&D.  Way back when, the Kender Taunt did much the same thing.

So, we've had aggro mechanics in the game for 20 years, but, now, all of a sudden it's making the game more video gamey?

Buh?


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> *Simple*
> 
> Because the "bodyguard" role that I'd wager is one of the most common roles in fiction just DOES NOT WORK in D&D. Unless you are in a corridor with your charge behind you, there was nothing preventing the enemy from simply ignoring you (sure, in 3E, you eat an attack of opportunity but the tradeoff...in D&D before AoO? There's nothing for the enemy to worry about).
> 
> ...




Hmm.  I'm not quite convinced.  

First, I'm not really sure what you mean by this "bodyguard" role of which you speak.

Second, it makes no sense whatsoever in my mind for a monster who really wants to kill the wizard behind the fighter to feel some unnatural compulsion to first stop and whack on the fighter for a bit.  If they want to get to the wizard, they should feel free to try (and take whatever Attacks of Opportunity the fighter "bodyguard" throws at it).

Using the logic of your post, would you be in support of a rule that forbade rogues from tumbling past enemies (and their AoOs) in order to get at the badguy behind them?  Must they also slug it out with the frontline?

Hmmm....


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why do people seem to think that this is the first time this has come up.  The Knight's Challenge is pretty much aggro mechanics for D&D.  Way back when, the Kender Taunt did much the same thing.
> 
> So, we've had aggro mechanics in the game for 20 years, but, now, all of a sudden it's making the game more video gamey?
> 
> Buh?




There seems to me to be a distinct difference between an ability that a character can use to make a monster attack him or her and a built-in description of tactics in a monster's stat block that tells the DM what characters the monsters must attack first.


----------



## ShadowX (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny nailed it when he said that the aggro mechanism derives its existence as a substitute for lack of positioning tactics and, sad to say, good game design.  Admittedly, if "tanks" can't punish opponents for marching past them, then it's a little harder to create a realistic and efficacious system to ensure that "tanks" can protect the squishy casters in the back.  However, aggro is certainly not the best that the huge teams creating video games today should come up with and it provides one of the main reasons I consider the MMORPG genre the most stagnant genre in an increasingly conservative industry.  At the very least it needs modification beyond the very trite aggro lists now ubiquitous in the genre.

I too am upset that this archaic system, easily one of the worst to borrow from a MMORPG, garnered any design effort at all.  The concept of aggro disarms one of the best features of P&P RPGs, that you have a living, breathing person adapting to the actions of your character and it would be incredibly stupid to borrow an inferior system from MMORPGs.  Like others, I am at least somewhat mollified that they did indeed discard the idea.  This is likely the first part of the design process for 4e where I need question the abilities of the designers because up to now nearly every tidbit of information aligns perfectly with my hopes for a new edition.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 10, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  The way "aggro" seems to work is exactly how every D&D game I've played has had monsters behave - They beat up whoever is doing the most damage to them (typically whomever hit them last, but not always), and if smart enough try to hurt the healer if he's healing people.  That's how it's always been for me.




Yep, me too.  I've always run monsters this way.  Whoever is doing the most damage is going to be the one that is considered the biggest threat.  We just didn't have a fancy term for it before.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I prefer my designers -- whatever the game -- to try anything that looks like it might be a good idea and to ruthlessly reject any that don't, whatever their source, even from previous editions.
> 
> The day the designers start refusing to even countenance certain design possibilities, it's time to get new designers.




The problem is that aggro is so obviously a bad idea that is annoying that it was even considered.  It isn't even a good idea in video games.  It isn't done in video games because it works, but rather because that's the only option we have.  The only way we can have things work in an MMORPG is if everything has simple and predictable scripts underlying thier behavior.  It sucks even in an MMORPG and even to the extent that it doesn't, its just people making a feature out of a bug.  It's a huge step backward from what is possible in a game.

Granted, they probably figured that out almost as soon as they tried it, but that implies that they didn't understand the above paragraph to begin with.   A good designer sees things in his head as they actually are.  This is important because nothing is ever perfectly play tested.  The designers rough approximation has to be very good, or in play its going to impossible to knock the rough edges off.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Oh please.  D&D4 is not going to have WoW-cooties on it, for chrissake.




Yay! I think I'll have to fit this into my sig on another board.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 10, 2007)

So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things.  Blech.


----------



## Henry (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I thought it was more inspired by Fallout, but I may be mistaken.




In which case it was inspired by GURPS, which would make sense. 

Fallout, people may remember, before a disagreement with Steve Jackson Games, was going to be a GURPS system computer game.



			
				Counterspin said:
			
		

> So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things.  Blech.




ENWorld, WotC message boards, RPG.net, and, prior to now, a few posters who gravitated to other forums like Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves. If it's new, it's not the old.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem is that aggro is so obviously a bad idea that is annoying that it was even considered.



Bear in mind, of course, that we have _absolutely no idea_ how they tried to implement it. We have _no idea_ how similar it was to WoW mechanics. You can assume that, if it were identical to WoW, it would clearly be a bad idea for D&D, and many would agree, I think. But we have _no idea_ what they actually tried to implement, and how they tried to implement it.

Stop assuming that they just took WoW mechanics and tried to port them directly to D&D. We have no evidence that that's what they did.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 10, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things.  Blech.



Welcome to the 4E forum. It's a very informative place, in more ways than one.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why do people seem to think that this is the first time this has come up.  The Knight's Challenge is pretty much aggro mechanics for D&D.




Not me. I complained about the Knight's Challenge. I don't care if it's based on an MMO or not, the Knight shouldn't have mind control. If this were 1980 and the Knight's Challenge had been introduced then (and I was an active gamer rather than an infant) I would still have complained about it.



> Way back when, the Kender Taunt did much the same thing.




And the kender was one of the single most annoying concepts invented in DnD... IMO. However, complaints about kender tend to revolve around the requirements to "acquire shiny objects" which gets the party in trouble any time an NPC notices this (or the kender wanders off, which could also result in the party having to rescue the kender or get them in trouble, etc)...



> So, we've had aggro mechanics in the game for 20 years, but, now, all of a sudden it's making the game more video gamey?
> 
> Buh?




It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.

Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Welcome to the 4E forum. It's a very informative place, in more ways than one.




Sigh.  Reading posts like this really depress me.  I get the idea that people are looking down on me because I disagree with some design decisions.  It really shouldn't be that personal.



			
				Counterspin said:
			
		

> So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things. Blech.




I haven't seen "a bunch" of posters berating the designers for trying new things.  Some people are disagreeing with the need to try an old thing that doesn't seem to work very well from a vastly different medium.

Please don't look for a fight when there is none.  It is possible to disagree with things without making them personal.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.
> 
> Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.




I agree with your accessment here.  I have nothing against MMOs at all.  I've played a few and have plenty of friends who do likewise.  It's fun.

I do hate the idea of a rule that would take away the DM's choice on how to have the monsters under his control react.  I can see that this would lead to a lot of silly abuse.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In which case it was inspired by GURPS, which would make sense.



But during the seminars at the 3e rollout at GenCon, the 3e designers (Monte, Tweet, and Skip) mentioned that _Fallout_ the computer game inspired some things they did in 3e. I was there, I heard them say specifically that _Fallout_'s Perks inspired Feats.

Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, *3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY!*    It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But during the seminars at the 3e rollout at GenCon, the 3e designers (Monte, Tweet, and Skip) mentioned that _Fallout_ the computer game inspired some things they did in 3e. I was there, I heard them say specifically that _Fallout_'s Perks inspired Feats.
> 
> Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, *3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY!*    It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right




I believe the internet expression is "FOR THE WIN!!!!"


----------



## Maggan (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Some people are disagreeing with the need to try an old thing that doesn't seem to work very well from a vastly different medium.




And that's what's so strange to me. WotC tried something out, verified that it didn't work, and chucked the rule out. The rule won't appear in 4e, and some posters are still not happy, since the mere thought of the 4e design team even just thinking about trying out some rules is somehow to be derided.

A good designer has the guts to try stuff out. Things that look good on paper might suck, and things that look bad on paper might rock. A designer that sets up needless barriers and boundaries in his own head and thereby refuses to try new OR old stuff is a bad designer, IMO.

/M


----------



## Henry (Nov 10, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, *3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY!*    It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right




But the chain of evidence takes it back to GURPS, which was written by Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England, and TSR was founded by Gary, who co-created D&D.

Feats - Fallout - GURPS - Jackson - TSR - D&D

Six degrees! It all goes back to D&D.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 10, 2007)

It was not that long ago that Dragon magazine had a regular column that was based on the idea of implementing concepts from computer games into D&D.  It was a really good idea.  And it wasn't a "let's make D&D a video game" thing.  It was a "lets use other cool games as a muse  and use that to think outside the box" thing.  

The little bit we have been offered here seems exactly the same.  There is a difference between trying to put WOW aggro into D&D and seeing that it might be a good idea to allow some characters to draw attacks sometimes.  

It is a good thing that they are thinking outside the box and looking around for new ideas.
It is a good thing that they are testing them with an open mind.
It is a good thing that they are willing to walk away from ideas when they don't hold up.
It would be a bad thing to get stuck in a knee-jerk anything-remotely-associated-with-WOW must suck by definition mentality.
I really really don't want D&D to seem like WOW.  A lot of great ideas can be drawn from WOW and adapted into D&D.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> And that's what's so strange to me. WotC tried something out, verified that it didn't work, and chucked the rule out. The rule won't appear in 4e, and some posters are still not happy, since the mere thought of the 4e design team even just thinking about trying out some rules is somehow to be derided.
> 
> A good designer has the guts to try stuff out. Things that look good on paper might suck, and things that look bad on paper might rock. A designer that sets up needless barriers and boundaries in his own head and thereby refuses to try new OR old stuff is a bad designer, IMO.
> 
> /M




I'm with you on this. So they tried an aggro mechanic and then tossed it. This is just great evidence that the designers are doing a good job.

They are not afraid to try new mechanics if it will make the game better, and they are not afraid to toss those mechanics when they realize it hurt the game. That should be what good game design is all about. I don't see a problem.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> But it _is_ illogical, because ultimately the things the tank is doing are nowhere near as threatening as what the DPSers are doing.  Not to mention the healers.  It doesn't take a tactical genius to realize that you can kill the tank much faster if you first kill the extremely fragile guy who's constantly healing him.
> 
> 
> That's, um, not an aggro system you're describing there.  The whole point of an aggro system is that it shortcuts the design work of making "attack the fighter" a reasonable option and just makes the monsters do it anyway.




The theory isn't absurdly illogical.  If Fighter A is super dangerous if ignored, you can't ignore the fighter.  Its basic logical theory.  The practice in MMOs though is illogical because they just add threat to fighter moves because they want him hit not because its somehow more threatening.  Also in MMOs fighters can stay up the entire fight if he is exclusively being pounded on with healer support while a mage will drop in a round.  The disparity in pen and paper games is usually not nearly as large.  So while the mage is a softer target he isn't a paper target vs a main battle tank target. 

What it looks like they did is create a agro mechanic that works on the human mind and not the AI.  And yes it is basically a agro system.  You are creating threat so the human DM makes the decision to hit the fighter instead of the mage.  Just like in a mmorpg you create threat so the AI mind decides to attack the warrior instead of the mage.  So instead of saying here is a debuff which we tack on an extra 500 threat with, they instead say if you pass by a fighter you get hit by this immediate action, and trust me you want to avoid that immediate action.  Its best you deal with the fighter first.  

The only real difference against a human DM instead of an AI you have to make the threat real and not an arbitrary 500 tacked on.


----------



## Grog (Nov 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In which case it was inspired by GURPS, which would make sense.
> 
> Fallout, people may remember, before a disagreement with Steve Jackson Games, was going to be a GURPS system computer game.



Have you played Fallout? It's not at all like GURPS. The disagreement you mentioned meant that the designers had to chuck the GURPS mechanics and replace them with new ones. Perks (special abilities that your character gets every three levels) were one of those replacements. There's nothing like them in GURPS (to my knowledge, anyway).


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 10, 2007)

For the folks who are upset that these rules were even considered ... don't forget that Mearls is but one of many designers. These mechanics might have been introduced by, say ... Noonan ... and Mearls has been arguing against their inclusion. They reached a concensus and now Mearls is delivering the news. The points he's illustrating in this post were points he was arguing from the beginning. :\

There are WoW players on the design team and there are people who can't stand WoW on the design team. So you have people acting as a conduit for new ideas from another game system and you have people who are willing to argue against those ideas. That's comforting, no?


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Have you played Fallout? It's not at all like GURPS. The disagreement you mentioned meant that the designers had to chuck the GURPS mechanics and replace them with new ones. Perks (special abilities that your character gets every three levels) were one of those replacements. There's nothing like them in GURPS (to my knowledge, anyway).




They're called Advantages in GURPS.  That it's not a level-based system is pretty much irrelevant here.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England



I know that the post as such was humorous, but I have to ask: When did Steve work at TSR UK? I thought I knew the people working there and I'm sure I would have remembered seeing him around.


----------



## Henrix (Nov 10, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I know that the post as such was humorous, but I have to ask: When did Steve work at TSR UK? I thought I knew the people working there and I'm sure I would have remembered seeing him around.



I think Henry is confusing him with Steve Jackson, the co-founder of Games Workshop. And GW had the British D&D license, right?

The USanian Steve Jackson was busy working for Metagaming then, if memory serves me right.

(And, Hi, Mygel/Oldtimer!   )


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 10, 2007)

Henrix said:
			
		

> I think Henry is confusing him with Steve Jackson, the co-founder of Games Workshop. And GW had the British D&D license, right?
> 
> The USanian Steve Jackson was busy working for Metagaming then, if memory serves me right.



You're probably right. GW was the TSR distributor in UK until TSR UK was started and one of GW's founders was named Steve Jackson.

Confusing a brit with a yankee, are we Henry? 



			
				Henrix said:
			
		

> (And, Hi, Mygel/Oldtimer!   )



Hi there. Long time, no see.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I'm not quite convinced.
> 
> First, I'm not really sure what you mean by this "bodyguard" role of which you speak.




Hmm?

You never heard of a bodyguard? So when the princess makes her journey to her fiancee's castle/kingdom, what do you call the people protecting her?


			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Second, it makes no sense whatsoever in my mind for a monster who really wants to kill the wizard behind the fighter to feel some unnatural compulsion to first stop and whack on the fighter for a bit.  If they want to get to the wizard, they should feel free to try (and take whatever Attacks of Opportunity the fighter "bodyguard" throws at it).




This is an aspect of the HP system and the initative system. A creature isn't going to "ignore" the guy swinging the steel right in front of him. Quick: How many novel scenes where an attacker basically ignores/soaks the damage from the guy in front to attack the guy in back compared with the attacker trying to either feint/remove the guy in front to attack the back row.


			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Using the logic of your post, would you be in support of a rule that forbade rogues from tumbling past enemies (and their AoOs) in order to get at the badguy behind them?  Must they also slug it out with the frontline?
> 
> Hmmm....




Actually I am.

I don't allow rogues to timble past automatically the front lines. 

HOUSE RULE:I use an opposed roll Balance vs BAB since I always found it weird that a rogue can tumble past automatically even against a foe who is 10 levels higher and said foe has been fighting rogues for the past 10 levels.


----------



## Wardo (Nov 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> And that's what's so strange to me. WotC tried something out, verified that it didn't work, and chucked the rule out. The rule won't appear in 4e, and some posters are still not happy, since the mere thought of the 4e design team even just thinking about trying out some rules is somehow to be derided.
> 
> A good designer has the guts to try stuff out. Things that look good on paper might suck, and things that look bad on paper might rock. A designer that sets up needless barriers and boundaries in his own head and thereby refuses to try new OR old stuff is a bad designer, IMO.
> 
> /M




I agree with everyone expressing this sentiment; you have to try new things, you have to try things shown to work in other games.

But I think the most important thing that some of the negative posters here are missing, is that they didn't just try something out, and toss it when it didn't work. They replaced it with something that would lead to the same game play experience (monsters actually stopping to fight the fighters) without forcing the DM to do anything with mind-control like abilities. That seems like a 100% positive contribution to me.

And it came from trying another system that accomplishes the same thing, and seeing what they didn't like about it.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Nov 10, 2007)

Wow, guys. 

WotC explicitly says they're not using aggro in D&D, and you get mad at them for experimenting in the first place, because "it's obviously a bad idea".

I'm really happy that they're willing to try new things. I'm even happier that they're willing to scrap some of those new things when they don't work. It shows a commitment to good design and is, I daresay, the hallmark of a good design team.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> When you put it that way it does sound a lot better.  I guess my concern is that they may have actually expected it to work, which would not speak well of them.




I have a feeling the thought process was something more like this:

"Ok, there has never been a very good way to determine what character a monster will go for, any ideas?"

"What about an aggro system like in several MMOs?"

"Not sure how that will work for D&D precisely, but let's see if we can use it to make a better game"

*5 playtests and several revisions later*

"OK guys the aggro things was only so-so and just feels like it's adding more restrictions to the game, which we're trying to remove in the first place.  Great try tho, we found out one thing that definitely doesn't work."


If our game developers weren't doing things like this, I agree with others that I would be disappointed.  Try everything, keep what works well and makes the game more interesting and fun.  I don't care if you found something useful to borrow from Vampire, GURPS or Monopoly, if it works well and makes D&D a better game*, then make D&D a better game already 

*It's already a great game, but I see room for improvement and obviously the 4E team does too.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Wow, guys.
> 
> WotC explicitly says they're not using aggro in D&D, and you get mad at them for experimenting in the first place, because "it's obviously a bad idea".
> 
> I'm really happy that they're willing to try new things. I'm even happier that they're willing to scrap some of those new things when they don't work. It shows a commitment to good design and is, I daresay, the hallmark of a good design team.




*shrugs*  I'm not mad.  I don't get worked up about things like games.  At least, not since I was 12 or so.

Let me use a poor analogy.  

Dell announces that it considered replacing DVD-ROM drives in its new line of laptop computers with 5 1/4" floppy disk drives but then ultimately decided not to do so.  Even though the company decided ultimately to do the "right" thing--"right" here being subjective, I know, since some people no doubt would love 5 1/4" floppy disk drives in their laptops--I think it would be a fair question to ask why they even considered such a move in the first place.

To use an example from WotC specifically, it was announced early in the discussion of the Digital Initiative that they were considering selling randomly determined "packs" of virtual miniatures.  Although they later decided not to take that approach, I wouldn't be surprised if several people asked themselves, "What were they thinking?"


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> You never heard of a bodyguard? So when the princess makes her journey to her fiancee's castle/kingdom, what do you call the people protecting her?




Please don't insult my intelligence.  Of course I've heard of bodyguards.  I saw that movie with Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner back in the day, didn't I?    By the way, I tried shooting my pistol with my eyes closed like he did.  Never hit a darn thing.  Wonder how he did it....  

I'm just not sure the roll of bodyguard is as archetypal as you seem to suggest.  I doubt that the game needs to be reworked in a serious manner in order to make bodyguard rules more effective.

Oh, since you asked.  What do I call the people protecting the princess as she makes her journey to her fiance's castle/kingdom?

Corpses for the party to find as they're investigating why she didn't make it....


----------



## BryonD (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Let me use a poor analogy.



I don't see how either of those examples remotely relates to the issue at hand.
You could call any change they have made in any aspect of the rules "like putting a 5 1/4 floppy in a new laptop".  It wouldn't make any sense.  But you can say it.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't see how either of those examples remotely relates to the issue at hand.
> You could call any change they have made in any aspect of the rules "like putting a 5 1/4 floppy in a new laptop".  It wouldn't make any sense.  But you can say it.




OK.  You're right that I'm waaay off base.

My analogies suck.  Ignore the analogy.  They really aren't the point.

What I was trying to illustrate is why some people reacted the way they did.  In their estimation, WotC considered an idea that was doomed to fail, and that's the problem.  Why even waste time on such an idea?

Sure, thinking outside the box and all.  I get that.  But taking away the DM's ability to control monsters?  That just seems fundamentally a bad idea to me.

Maybe someone will come by and be able to illustrate this point better than me, since I suck.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2007)

Maybe it's more like instead of wireless internet on the laptop they're trying to decide between token ring or 1o-baseT ethernet.  Both archaic and outdated, but still used many places 

An aggro system could have been interesting maybe, but obviously it wasn't worth keeping in 4E.  Next issue?


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Maybe it's more like instead of wireless internet on the laptop they're trying to decide between token ring or 1o-baseT ethernet.  Both archaic and outdated, but still used many places
> 
> An aggro system could have been interesting maybe, but obviously it wasn't worth keeping in 4E.  Next issue?




Oh, I'm certainly ready for a new one....


----------



## amethal (Nov 10, 2007)

I have no axe to grind either in favour of 4th editon or against it.

I am happy that the designers are using it as an opportunity to experiment, and even more happy that they are willing to ditch ideas that don't work.

However, an "aggro" mechanic is such an obviously bad idea for D&D that I am dismayed they wasted their time considering it. I am concerned that they may waste too much time testing and discarding such obviously bad ideas, so that the good ideas are not as fully developed as they otherwise would be.

It also makes me wonder whether some other equally bad idea might slip through into the final product.


----------



## Alt Boy! (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I don't get worked up about things like games.




Yes, but clearly it doesn't look at all like being worked up to respond to every person who directly disagreed with you. in separate comments.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 10, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> However, an "aggro" mechanic is such an obviously bad idea for D&D that I am dismayed they wasted their time considering it.




See that the problem, its not such an obviously bad idea from everyone's perspective.

I keep hearing how everyone is worried that dnd is turning into a video game, but let's be honest folks people play video games for a reason...they are fun!!

To me though, dnd has something video games just don't have, complete freedom. My character can so many things on the fly that no video game can handle. But that doesn't mean some video game mechanics aren't good ideas.

The basic principle of the aggro mechanic is that it allows the archetype of the heavy defense, low offense character. In standard dnd, a smart opponent will ignore the heavy fighter guys in favor of the wizards because wizards are a lot easier to hit and they tend to hurt a lot more. Well, so much for all of that great AC my character has.

In many video games, they use an aggro mechanic, and that works well for the games. The tank guy gets to play the tank, and the blaster guy sits in the back and blasts. At its core, its a solid mechanic for what it was used for.

So if your a designer, and you want to allow heavy defense players to get their fun in, your going to look at mechanics like aggro. Why, because it works well!!

However, the designers eventually determined that it didn't fit the mechanics or the feel of dnd, so they dropped it. No shame in that.

But for the love of pete please stop wallowing in worry because the designers considered something you don't like. I would bet good money that the designers come up with absolute INSANE!! ideas during their brainstorming session that a 10 year old would think is stupid. But that's brainstorming, you throw every idea you can think of and filter out the ones that don't work. If it doesn't make it to the final product, no harm no foul.


----------



## Alt Boy! (Nov 10, 2007)

Oh NOES!!!

I am unsatisfied with the time-management decisions of WotC Staff.  I heard the spent a day on encumberance, will they have enough time for spellcasting!

I am jerk, hear me roar.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> However, an "aggro" mechanic is such an obviously bad idea for D&D that I am dismayed they wasted their time considering it.




I think this is part of the disconnect in this thread.  There are very few design ideas I would consider obviously bad.  Going diceless in a game that has always been about rolling dice for determining success would be one of the few.  I just don't think that everyone agrees taht it was OBVIOUSLY a bad thing.  Such a bad thing to not even bother trying.  They tried it, felt it was too clunky or just made the game not feel liek D&D anymore and went on.  

They might have tried porting Half Giants from Dark Sun into the PHB too simply cuz ppl have liked them in the past.  Would that be obviously bad?  Try everything, throw out what sucks.

And as far as being worried it will make them miss other less good aspects, I really dont' expect to eevr see any posts like:

"Yeah we hated the 3E grapple system too, but we spent so much time playtesting aggro controls and other stuff we didn't include that we didn't ever get a chance to write new ones, so we used the ones from 3.5.  Oops."


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 10, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> However, an "aggro" mechanic is such an obviously bad idea for D&D that I am dismayed they wasted their time considering it. I am concerned that they may waste too much time testing and discarding such obviously bad ideas, so that the good ideas are not as fully developed as they otherwise would be.



But then, it's easier to errata/ignore (as multiclassing penalties)/houserule bad rules than to create good rules wholesale.

And for playtesting bad ideas:
I rather have them testing hundred bad ideas with finding one good idea than ignoring all bad ideas to keep their game "pure" of bad ideas. Even if this means we could get one or two bad ideas into the game - because throwing stuff out is always easier than making new stuff up.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2007)

Heck if they really wanted to cut a whole lot of stuff out, they could just drop hit points, switch to Ken Hood's Grim n Gritty Revised version and really cut a lot of stuff out of the game.  Including long life expectancy


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> OK.  You're right that I'm waaay off base.
> 
> My analogies suck.  Ignore the analogy.  They really aren't the point.
> 
> ...




"Doomed to fail," huh? Right, because of course, they know everything about what might work in D&D. And it's not like the guys at WotC are professional game designers, or anything.

What if they implemented some kind of aggro management system that relied on the DM to provide the intelligence? In other words, implement aggro guidelines into the rules, with the DM as the AI. Would that be a bad idea?

I mean, it comes down to a simple question. Do you trust these people to do their job, or don't you? If you're so much better at designing games than the guys at WotC, you clearly don't need them to do the work for you.

This kind of stuff just drives me nuts.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I thought it was more inspired by Fallout, but I may be mistaken.



I could well have my chronology messed up.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> Gloombunny nailed it when he said that the aggro mechanism derives its existence as a substitute for lack of positioning tactics and, sad to say, good game design.



It has nothing to do with bad game design, it's a reflection of the limitations of current systems. There are CRPGs where designers have collision working and are great designers and the NPCs are still as dumb as a box of rocks. No matter what, they HAVE to come up with an algorithm that dictates NPC decision-making and responding to threats will always be part of it.

And this isn't an MMORPG thing: Aggro mechanics are in place in every CRPG ever, they just vary in their approach over time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem is that aggro is so obviously a bad idea that is annoying that it was even considered.  It isn't even a good idea in video games.



Really? What should videogames be doing instead?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> What I was trying to illustrate is why some people reacted the way they did.  In their estimation, WotC considered an idea that was doomed to fail, and that's the problem.  Why even waste time on such an idea?




I think the question you might convince WotC to ask is: "Why even waste time on communicating our design process?"

I'd prefer to hear about as much of the process as I can. Otherwise, I'd leave ENWorld and Wizards.com alone until June, y'know?


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 10, 2007)

LEAVE MEARL'S ALONE!!! HE'S JUST TRYING TO DESIGN FOURTH EDITION FOR YOU, AND ALL YOU DO IS RIDICULE HIM FOR TRYING OUT MMOPRG IDEAS!11ELEVEN!!


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I think the question you might convince WotC to ask is: "Why even waste time on communicating our design process?"
> 
> I'd prefer to hear about as much of the process as I can. Otherwise, I'd leave ENWorld and Wizards.com alone until June, y'know?




Oh, I want to hear about the design process as well.  It will help me decide what I want to do with 4.0 when it comes out...if I'm going to play the game as is or cannibalize parts for my 3.5 game or whatever.  It's very helpful to hear what the designers have to say.  I certainly don't want that to go away!

But I still reserve the right to be displeased about something, although I will try to keep an open mind.  That's why I love hearing what you guys have to say.  It's generally pretty helpful in filling in the things I might have missed in my own assessment of things.

As far as my criticisms convincing anyone in WotC to give up publishing insider articles because I think that aggro mechanics are a bad idea or whatever, I hope they're not that thin-skinned.

That being said, I think I'm going to have some leftover Dragon Tail Cut that I got when I went out with my girlfriend to Points of Light last night.  I love eating there.  Mmmm.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Really? What should videogames be doing instead?




Using Skynet-level AI.

Then we we'll have much more pressing things to worry about than 4.0....


----------



## Nifft (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Using Skynet-level AI.



 Yes!



			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Then we we'll have much more pressing things to worry about than 4.0....



 I for one welcome our new cyberdemon overlords.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I mean, it comes down to a simple question. Do you trust these people to do their job, or don't you? If you're so much better at designing games than the guys at WotC, you clearly don't need them to do the work for you.




It's a fallacy to argue that someone has to be an expert at doing something in order to criticize it.

If you think Windows Millenium edition sucks, should you just remain quiet because you aren't Bill Gates and/or you don't have a computer degree?

If you think a law is unfair, should you just suck it up and not utter a word in protest because you aren't a practicing lawyer?

If you think a movie sucks, should you just shut the heck up and watch it anyway just because you aren't a director or Roger Ebert?

Sure, I listen to what experts have to say.  But I also reserve the right to my own opinion.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This kind of stuff just drives me nuts.




Try to relax.  It's just a game.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 10, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> LEAVE MEARL'S ALONE!!! HE'S JUST TRYING TO DESIGN FOURTH EDITION FOR YOU, AND ALL YOU DO IS RIDICULE HIM FOR TRYING OUT MMOPRG IDEAS!11ELEVEN!!




Nice.

By the way, your user picture has me completely hypnotized.

What is thy bidding, my master?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 10, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> It's a fallacy to argue that someone has to be an expert at doing something in order to criticize it.



Yes. But it's also pretty ridiculous when people complain and grind their teeth when they hear a rule or a rule system they might not like has even been considered, even though the designers said in the next breath that they didn't like the results either, and the rule isn't incorporated in the final design.

Or, basically, you don't have to be an expert to criticize someone, but if you're an amateur and they're the experts, it's reasonable to assume they know what they're doing, quite possibly _better than you_ and give them the benefit of doubt.



> Try to relax. It's just a game.



Game's fine; it's us gamers that are problematic.


----------



## HeinorNY (Nov 10, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem is that aggro is so obviously a bad idea that is annoying that it was even considered.  It isn't even a good idea in video games.



But _aggro _ is just attention of the monster towards your character, thus choosing to attack your character. What makes the monster attack your character is your _threat_ towards that monster. If you deal a lot of damage to the monster, and the guy next you stands looking, the monster will attack you, so you will have the monster's aggro on you.
We don't need rules for aggro/threat mechanics in D&D because it always existed before, based on the DM's discrition and good sense. In WoW it works based on predictable scripts because.. welll... it's a computer game. In D&D the DM does all the work deciding which character the monsters will attack, and THAT is the aggro/threat mechanism, right in there. 

If you are an archer and two enemies are charging you, an orc with a greataxe and a goblin with a stick. Which one will you attack first? That's the aggro/threat mechanism. It's in our judgement, but it exists.

We don't need rules for that because the rules could never be complete enough, there could be too many variables involved. If the characters enters a room with an orc inside, will the orc attack the fighter, the cleric or the wizard? How do you create a rule for that? What if the orc wants to run away? What if the orc knows that there is a trap in the room? A set of rules would never be good enough, it's just better to let real people to the job.

A _taunt_ mechanism is totally different, but also exists in D&D. Your fighter could make a bluff check so the enemy believes he is weak and an easy target, thus somehow "convincing" the enemy to attack him, or the wizard could make an inimidate check so all his enemies get intimidated and chose another one to attack. We could have better rules to adjucate these situations a lot easier though.

Back to the aggro/threat rules, we COULD have some guidlines regarding some types of monsters. If the group faces some unintelligent beast, which one will it attack first? The largest character? The smallest? Will it run away? How does a creature with Int lower than 5 makes that kind of choice, or other choices like fighting to death, running away when "bloodied", etc. Do orcs fight to death? Or trolls? What about a dragon? We could really have better rules or just guidelines concearning monsters behaviour in combat.


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 10, 2007)

Actually, it's relatively easy to make "smart" AI for an MMOs.

1. Identify healer.
2. Nuke healer into the ground.
3. Identify wizard.
4. Nuke wizard into the ground.

The issue is not that AI is not smart, it's that this style of gameplay is not fun (at least is not fun if you have differing levels of survivability).  Thus we have the aggro mechanic which can be manipulated, which makes the game interesting.

Quite honestly, most of us don't play monsters in the most optimum manner either. There's not a lot of fun in focusing all of the dragon's attacks on the wizard, ignoring the other party members.  But 9 times out of 10, that's probably the best tactic for the dragon.  Instead we usually play the monsters in a less optimal, but more fun, manner, and that is something which is very hard to capture in a ruleset.

It's the same thing in most video games.  It's often relatively trivial to make an AI character that cannot be beaten.  Think of a bot that never missed in an FPS. It's hard to make an AI that is a challenge, but beatable.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And this isn't an MMORPG thing: Aggro mechanics are in place in every CRPG ever, they just vary in their approach over time.



Not really. In many videogame RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series, enemies essentially attack at random. In other games, like Fire Emblem, they always go for the enemy they will hurt the most, with the least risk to themselves from direct counterattacks. As such, you can't really say that Aggro rules (in which the idea is based on targetting the one doing the most damage to the monster) is universal.

Certainly, the most iconic element of Aggro rules, tanks using a "taunt" or other move with artificially high aggravation qualities in order to draw attention to themselves, is _far_ from universal. More often, there are no characters so squishy that a tank is necessary, there are enough characters that you can form protection formations with a line of tanks, or tanks have abilities that let them actively interpose themselves between a monster and an ally the moment before an attack. The whole idea of a tank working by tricking the monster into _willingly_ attacking the tough guy is certainly an aspect of MMORPGs, is very rare elsewhere, and is a very problematic system.

I am glad that the WotC guys are trying out new things and exploring potential systems to make playing a defender character work, but I am even more glad they ditched the idea of using aggro rules. Such rules are easily the worst solution I have yet seen to the team defense problem.

I would be much happier if the rules were such that the monster will always want to target the damage-dealers and healers, but simply can't, because every time he tries, the tank gets in his way and knocks him back.


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Nov 10, 2007)

It's all about making a framework for interesting choices.

Contemporary MMOG aggro management schemes may be clunky, and they're certainly a poor simulation. As a simulation, they are admittedly pretty absurd; but that was never the intent of aggro schemes anyway. GSHamster nailed it; aggro is a kind of mini-game designed to give the player interesting choices. Should I feign now, how many nukes can I chain on this boss, is this the moment I should use my one-shot uber taunt? Whatever.

A lot of people find this experience unsatisfying for any number of perfectly good reasons. It works well enough, however, to keep a few million people entertained every day.

Now, I might feel like it's 'obvious' or somehow instinctive to think that this kind of push-style, phony aggro scheme is totally unsuited for a table top game. I may even think I know why. Does that mean that I cannot learn something from the testing that theory, even if the results turn out exactly as expected?

Is it impossible to learn anything at all from such a test?

If the failure of push-aggro in R&D's playtest lead them to some insight on creating a useful, pull-aggro mechanism, well then, _bravo!_

The "ignore me at your own opportunity cost"-style of aggro clearly adds interesting choices; if that in turn adds a new layer of class features and differentiation, then */w00t!*


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 10, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> However, an "aggro" mechanic is such an obviously bad idea for D&D that I am dismayed they wasted their time considering it. I am concerned that they may waste too much time testing and discarding such obviously bad ideas, so that the good ideas are not as fully developed as they otherwise would be.



Well, turns out agro mechanics were such "an obiviously bad" idea WotC ended up using them. Yup, making it so that turning your attention from the fighter allows him wreak havoc or that paladin has an ability to make attacks on party members other than himself weaker are agro mechanics through and through. They both direct the enemy's attention, which agro/thread is all about. As a matter of fact both mechanics will available for tanks in the upcoming Warhammer Online MMO (Knight of the Blazing Sun and Black Orc to give class names).

The horror...


----------



## amethal (Nov 10, 2007)

The Merciful said:
			
		

> Well, turns out agro mechanics were such "an obiviously bad" idea WotC ended up using them. Yup, making it so that turning your attention from the fighter allows him wreak havoc or that paladin has an ability to make attacks on party members other than himself weaker are agro mechanics through and through. They both direct the enemy's attention, which agro/thread is all about.



Thanks, but we are using such different definitions of aggro mechanics that I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.

For what it is worth, I mean aggro mechanics in the sense that the monster (or the DM, if you prefer) is compelled to attack a specific PC.

It appears that using attacks of opportunity could be an "aggro mechanic" using your approach, so it wouldn't be a fourth edition topic anyway.

Also, I think Mike Mearls (as refered to in the opening post) is using a definition closer to mine, since he is under the impression that aggro mechanics were tried and then discarded.



			
				The Merciful said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact both mechanics will available for tanks in the upcoming Warhammer Online MMO (Knight of the Blazing Sun and Black Orc to give class names).



I don't think this is relevant to a D&D discussion.


----------



## Victim (Nov 10, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Actually, it's relatively easy to make "smart" AI for an MMOs.
> 
> 1. Identify healer.
> 2. Nuke healer into the ground.
> ...




That's as much a result of monster/character stats and the overall combat model as it is the AI though.  In Wow, for instance, healing is powerful while healers are pretty fragile.  Change the combat model so healing is less critical and healer target priority (in a 'smart') drops.  Or you make the healer hard to take out - like a WoW healing pally or a DnD cleric.

And PvP can be fun, despite the lack of AI restrictions on targeting.  It just runs on some different assumptions.


----------



## erisred (Nov 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> *Simple*
> 
> Because the "bodyguard" role that I'd wager is one of the most common roles in fiction just DOES NOT WORK in D&D. Unless you are in a corridor with your charge behind you, there was nothing preventing the enemy from simply ignoring you (sure, in 3E, you eat an attack of opportunity but the tradeoff...in D&D before AoO? There's nothing for the enemy to worry about).
> 
> ...



I see your point, but...me scratches head...in a game with humans on both side, surely that should all be a matter of roleplaying during the combat rather than hard and fast rules. If the bodyguard can stay between the PC and the VINPC, then the PC will have to fight his way through, over, past the bodyguard. OTOH, if the PC can get past the bodyguard, taking AOO's on the way, he can do that, too. 

There's a fighter in one of the games I'm running who believes her main role in life is to bodyguard the Elven Princess (another PC), and it's handled strictly though roleplaying...to the point of Rhaine being very upset if Khaira doesn't "stay back behind me" whenever there is any sort of threat in the area.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 11, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Not really. In many videogame RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series, enemies essentially attack at random.



Sorry, they're in place in every non-stupid CRPG.



> As such, you can't really say that Aggro rules (in which the idea is based on targetting the one doing the most damage to the monster) is universal.



That's not how aggro rules work, otherwise healers, buffers and crowd controllers would never draw aggro, which is absolutely not true.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Sorry, they're in place in every non-stupid CRPG.




I could be wrong, but I got the impression that the latest version of FF did actually have an aggro system. It definitely seemed like the enemy disengaged from the warrior and went after my mage after a strong nuke. There were even spells that forced an enemy to attack a cerrtain target.

Previous versions featured random attacks, however characters could possess abilities that allowed them to jump in front of the person being attacked and take the hit instead. So in a sense every version contained some form of tanking.


----------



## Gort (Nov 11, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Previous versions featured random attacks, however characters could possess abilities that allowed them to jump in front of the person being attacked and take the hit instead. So in a sense every version contained some form of tanking.



Perhaps some powers in this vein might be a better solution than an "aggro" or "mind control" suite of powers? After all, the problem is that the monster walks past the warrior and beats up the robed guys, so perhaps some kind of "interception" power that allows you to forgo an attack of opportunity to move between your ally and the enemy?


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 11, 2007)

Gort said:
			
		

> Perhaps some powers in this vein might be a better solution than an "aggro" or "mind control" suite of powers? After all, the problem is that the monster walks past the warrior and beats up the robed guys, so perhaps some kind of "interception" power that allows you to forgo an attack of opportunity to move between your ally and the enemy?




Unfortunately, this ability ("Intercept") was introduced in World of Warcraft (Warrior ability gained at level 70, I believe) and thus can no longer be used in D&D.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Sorry, they're in place in every non-stupid CRPG.



Err... what? You should clarify that pretty quickly, or I am just going to take that as an crude insult. I am going to be fair and assume thst you are not just saying either that the games are all somehow ihernetly bad, and don't count, or that they are games for stupid people. The only other interpretation I can think of is that they are games with stupid AI (which may be true), but that kind of claim is irrelevant at this point.

You did not specify any _type_ of RPG in your claim that every computer/console RPG has aggro mechanics. In other words, you are referring to the sum of all RPGs. That claim is false, and you can't just try to pull out of it by dismissing my point as applying only to "stupid-RPGs".



> That's not how aggro rules work, otherwise healers, buffers and crowd controllers would never draw aggro, which is absolutely not true.



So what? I know this well enough, and it is totally beside my point.

No matter what draws the aggro, aggro rules are always based on a monster attacking whatever annoys it the most. They assume that tanks must annoy monsters more than other characters in order to protect the party, and that monsters can freely move around and attack what they want. Fundamantally, they are a product of MMORPGs which have never implemented a system of allowing formation tactics and physical blocking of enemy movement.

There are many other systems in which enemy targetting is not based on aggrevation or risk to the monster, but on the monster's ability to do damage (pretty much the rule in tactical RPGs), or on random chance (pretty much the rule in all traditional Japanese RPGs). I would say that these games probably outnumber MMORPGs that use the aggro system, and _certainly_ count for enough to not be totally disregarded.

Of important note is that the videogames that most resemble D&D, Japanese tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Fire Emblem, and Super Robot Taisen, don't use aggro rules at all. Enemy AI primarily operates on opportunism and dealing damage as quickly as possible to whoever is within reach, and protecting weaker allies is built entirely on tactical movement (Fire Emblem's shoving and rescuing, moving to safe terrain, Disgaea's lift/throw, etc).


----------



## Xyl (Nov 11, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the chain of evidence takes it back to GURPS, which was written by Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England, and TSR was founded by Gary, who co-created D&D.
> 
> Feats - Fallout - GURPS - Jackson - TSR - D&D
> 
> Six degrees! It all goes back to D&D.



Hmm, let's look at World of Warcraft. It was obviously inspired by the success of Diablo, which was originally modeled on Nethack, which incorporates rules from D&D.

WoW - Diablo - Nethack - D&D

Only four degrees. Funny how everything connects, isn't it?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 11, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the chain of evidence takes it back to GURPS, which was written by Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England, and TSR was founded by Gary, who co-created D&D.
> 
> Feats - Fallout - GURPS - Jackson - TSR - D&D
> 
> Six degrees! It all goes back to D&D.





Those are two different Steve Jacksons.


There is the American Steve Jackson from Metagaming (The Fantasy Trip, melee, wizard) who went on to do GURPS, and there is English Steve Jackson who went on to do the fighting fantasy gamebooks of the early 80s... Deathtrap Dungeon, etc. and the later "Sorcery" similar type books etc. 

Rolemaster was using "talents" previous to GURPS.  "Feats" were nothing new to the RPG world in Y2K, only to the D&D world.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 11, 2007)

> Japanese tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Fire Emblem, and Super Robot Taisen, don't use aggro rules at all. Enemy AI primarily operates on opportunism and dealing damage as quickly as possible to whoever is within reach




  Actually, I'd say that games like Disgae love to dogpile squishy characters like mages and theives. You have to keep them well out of reach or they're pretty much insta-dead. Of course, this is actually feasible on a turn-based grid battle system. 

  For a traditonal JRPG, 3-4 characters lined up vs monsters, everyone can hit anyone else, and turn based, obviously tanking is not a factor. There is the intercept ability of the Knight class, but that's pretty much restricted to the FF series, you usually only get one guy who can do it, and it has a random chance of kicking in when HPs are critical. Not a major element of gameplay. 

  Instead, what you have is "mage" characters who are not that much more frail than warriors, and huge amounts of healing availible. Not to mention that ability to "res" fallen characters multiple times during a battle at a rather trivial cost. Protecting mages in these games is usually just a matter of keeping their HPs topped off so they don't get KO'd in a single round. This also doesn't apply to D&D very well unless you want to go with a system that completely de-emphasizes movement in favor of healing every single round. 

  D&D has never had a good system for "Tanking" either, unless you're always fighting in narrow corridors. I can see why the designers would be tempted to experiment with an aggro system, but what they eventually came up with--giving specific classes abilities that make them difficult to bypass, is a far more elegant solution.


----------



## Hairfoot (Nov 11, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> For those not familiar with MMOs, the term "aggro", etc...



Ah, useful.  In my homeland, Agro is some sort of TV goblin.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 11, 2007)

I think it's sad that they even had to _consider_ incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics. 

Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?

Makes me wonder what other MMO-think they've already embraced -- or hopefully, discarded.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 11, 2007)

> Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?




Well, there's probably a few reasons.

Right at the top of the list, we have 3e's "just go around them" problem. In 3e, a "defender" usually couldn't properly defend because the monsters would just walk around them. Reach helped alleviate the problem, but, really, it was still quite simple for most threats to get to any member of the party they desired. No one was well defended. Defensive characters didn't get to do their jobs and soft characters died too quickly to do their jobs. 

The easy way to make a monster stay with the defender is to give the defender some sort of "taunt" ability that forces the monster to pay attention to them.

Mearls pointed out the problem with that in D&D.

There are other ways to make the defender a more attractive target, and Mearls did a good job of pointing those out, too.


----------



## hectorse (Nov 11, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I think it's sad that they even had to _consider_ incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics.
> 
> Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?
> 
> Makes me wonder what other MMO-think they've already embraced -- or hopefully, discarded.




how is the air up there in that hgih horse?


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 11, 2007)

Alt Boy! said:
			
		

> Yes, but clearly it doesn't look at all like being worked up to respond to every person who directly disagreed with you. in separate comments.




I think Wolf Spider has been very civil and reasonable in his replies.  And don't forget, Alt Boy, this is a message forum.  The whole *point* is to respond to each other's posts.


----------



## Hairfoot (Nov 11, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?



I'd be interested to know how common this is.  Personally, I've had several arguments with players who believe monsters would attack PC X instead of PC Y, even though an intelligent opponent would target healers, magic-users, and backstabbers.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 11, 2007)

I'm not sure that all this posturing is really accomplishing much of anything, especially given that we've been told that the rules are not going to make it into 4E.

At the same time, a number of folks have said that it's "obvious" that these rules are a bad idea for both D&D and MMORPGS. It isn't obvious to me in either case, so I ask: why is it obviously bad game design to include agro-like rules in either a MMORPG or D&D. I ask this because World of Warcraft seems to be fairly popular despite having such rules.

Just Wonderin',

--Steve


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 11, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say that games like Disgae love to dogpile squishy characters like mages and theives. You have to keep them well out of reach or they're pretty much insta-dead. Of course, this is actually feasible on a turn-based grid battle system.



Err, that is what I just said. The ones who get picked on are the vunerable ones, but not necessarily the dangerous ones. Thieves are not very threatening to monsters in Disgaea, at the very least.  



> For a traditonal JRPG, 3-4 characters lined up vs monsters, everyone can hit anyone else, and turn based, obviously tanking is not a factor. There is the intercept ability of the Knight class, but that's pretty much restricted to the FF series, you usually only get one guy who can do it, and it has a random chance of kicking in when HPs are critical. Not a major element of gameplay.



This isn't exactly true... In FFX, Auron's Guard and Sentinel abilities are active abilities which lets Auron protect all allies that turn reliably. In FFVI, Celes's Runic ability is an active defense which protects the aprty from magic. In FFIV, Cecil's Cover ability can be directed, and _always_ works on critically wounded allies. As such, I do say that they are important tactical elements in those games, at least.

In addition, the Defender and Blocker abilities from the Wild ARMS series are similar, and are quite useful, so it isn't limited to the Final Fantasy series. Wild ARMs 4 and 5 even integrate those abilities with a limited tactical movement system.

Considering that I just mentioned Runic, and the Wild ARMs Magic Defender and Magic Blocker abilities, I wonder if this whole conversation could be turned towards the concept of defending against magical abilities not limited to physical positioning, in addition to just physical attacks and the like. Certainly, that was a great problem for older editions of D&D, where you have very few options for defending yourself against a mage attacking from a distance.



> Instead, what you have is "mage" characters who are not that much more frail than warriors, and huge amounts of healing availible. Not to mention that ability to "res" fallen characters multiple times during a battle at a rather trivial cost. Protecting mages in these games is usually just a matter of keeping their HPs topped off so they don't get KO'd in a single round. This also doesn't apply to D&D very well unless you want to go with a system that completely de-emphasizes movement in favor of healing every single round.



One classic element of the Final Fnatasy games that you are forgetting is the implied party formation system of back and front rows. The Suikoden series elaborates greatly on this concept, even though more recent FF games have de-emphasized it. The characters on the front row have greater attack options for at the cost of greater risk of injury, while characters in back rows are protected, but have fewer options for attack. There isn't explicit tanking in this set-up, but still accomplishes the purpose of having tough characters protect weaker characters.



> D&D has never had a good system for "Tanking" either, unless you're always fighting in narrow corridors. I can see why the designers would be tempted to experiment with an aggro system, but what they eventually came up with--giving specific classes abilities that make them difficult to bypass, is a far more elegant solution.



I agree for the most part. I just dislike the idea of "making defenders impossible to ignore", and prefer the concept of "making it _physically_ impossible to bypass the defender".


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 11, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that all this posturing is really accomplishing much of anything, especially given that we've been told that the rules are not going to make it into 4E.
> 
> At the same time, a number of folks have said that it's "obvious" that these rules are a bad idea for both D&D and MMORPGS. It isn't obvious to me in either case, so I ask: why is it obviously bad game design to include agro-like rules in either a MMORPG or D&D. I ask this because World of Warcraft seems to be fairly popular despite having such rules.
> 
> ...



I can't speak for the people who think it is "obvious", but if you ask me, the main problem with Aggro rules is the fact that they cause battles to be dangerously unstable. Such rules depend on the tank being on the top of the aggro list at all times, and that other party members deliberately hold themselves back to avoid being above the tank on the aggro list. Unless the whole party obsesses over aggro control at all times, and nothing occurs outside of the team strategy, then fragile attackers or healers tend to be killed suddenly. It reduces team flexibility and the chance of trying new strategies, and forces a game where everyone does the same thing all the time.

Anyone's guess is as good as mine as to why it works for WoW. The only MMORPG I have ever played is Everquest, so I know exactly how _bad_ aggro rules can be implemented, and the problems they cause.  Ugh, trains and the fact that Area of Effect attacks were suicide, and the high death rate, were more than enough to convince me how bad they could be.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 11, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that all this posturing is really accomplishing much of anything, especially given that we've been told that the rules are not going to make it into 4E.
> 
> At the same time, a number of folks have said that it's "obvious" that these rules are a bad idea for both D&D and MMORPGS. It isn't obvious to me in either case, so I ask: why is it obviously bad game design to include agro-like rules in either a MMORPG or D&D. I ask this because World of Warcraft seems to be fairly popular despite having such rules.
> 
> ...




I can speak to why I think that these kind of rules are a bad idea for D&D.

I think that it takes away control from the DM that he or she should have over what monsters do.

Maybe he's set up an encounter where the party runs into a group of goblins.  With the kind of "aggro" rules that seem to have been considered for inclusion into 4.0 ("explicit rules . . . where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe," to quote the original blog), monsters would have a set pattern in the way that they attack party members.  

For example, maybe goblins, being relatively weak, automatically attack unarmored characters.  Now, that may seem pretty wise of weak creatures like that, but if this behavior is hard-wired, so to speak, into their Monster Manual description and has rules to back it up, then the DM cannot have the monsters behave in any other way.  (Of course, the DM could always invoke Rule 0, but if the "aggro" rules are deeply ingrained into the new rules system, that might throw off balance and cause other problems.)  

Maybe as a DM I want the goblins to attack the cleric because he is wearing the holy symbol of a deity that their shaman leader particularly despises.  Sorry.  They've got to go for the wizard.  

Maybe as a DM I want the goblins to fear the wizard because they have seen what their own dark wizard master has done to those who have failed him.  Sorry.  The goblins have to go for the wizard despite their own fears.

It says so right in the Monster Manual.

Or might have.  Thankfully, it now seems as if it won't.

Whew!

EDIT:  Actually, the best explanation for why it's a bad idea comes from the original article itself.  (Imagine that!)  It reads:

*[An "aggro rule"] restricts DMs needlessly. We don't want to tell DMs, "You have to do this." It's pretty lame to force DMs to walk through a monster script. It might be interesting for a specific monster (the clockwork knight programmed with three specific routines) or encounter (the zombies in the temple of Orcus attack good clerics above all other targets), but not as a core rule.*


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 11, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> At the same time, a number of folks have said that it's "obvious" that these rules are a bad idea for both D&D and MMORPGS. It isn't obvious to me in either case, so I ask: why is it obviously bad game design to include agro-like rules in either a MMORPG or D&D. I ask this because World of Warcraft seems to be fairly popular despite having such rules.



Two reasons: big burly guys with big sharp axes should be dangerous, not just damage sponges.  And having monsters attack the guy standing around shouting insults instead of the guy setting them on fire is stupid.

These points are axiomatic as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 11, 2007)

I hope ever so much that they decide to include rules for camping on "spawns" so serious gamers can "grind" some easy experience. 

(Did I use those terms correctly?)

Appendix B of the new PHB: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/basics/glossary.html


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 11, 2007)

Its not at all obvious why an aggro mechanic is bad for D&D.

There are two problems with creating one, though.

First, D&D has collision detection that is (or rather can be written to be) much superior to that available in current-day MMORPGs.  Aggro rules eliminate the need to program a way for a character to physically block a monster from moving past him.  D&D already has rules for that. so it doesn't need aggro as much.

Second, D&D is more complex than most MMORPGs in terms of available strategy.  Monsters come in more varieties, with more tactical options available.  Most MMORPG attacks boil down to "hit enemy, maybe inflict status effect."  RPGs are a lot more complicated.  What if there's a wall of fire that deals 5d6 damage between a wizard and a monster, and there's a fighter on the side with the monster?  The wizard casts a lightning bolt and does 50 points of damage to the monster.  The fighter hasn't done more than 10 in any given round.  Does the wizard draw aggro?  Does the wall of fire have an effect?  How is it factored in?  Etc.  MMORPGs rarely deal with this sort of complexity, and when they do, they rarely do it realistically.  A DM's judgment call is usually just as good or better.

Realistically, most DMs have an informal, mental version of aggro that they use as a rule of thumb in planning monster tactics.  So informal aggro (and its unacknowledged brother in law, morale) will be part of D&D no matter what.


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 11, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Two reasons: big burly guys with big sharp axes should be dangerous, not just damage sponges.  And having monsters attack the guy standing around shouting insults instead of the guy setting them on fire is stupid.
> 
> These points are axiomatic as far as I'm concerned.




This seems to be a paradox to me.

If the fighter is just as dangerous as the mage, the monster should attack the mage because the mage is more fragile. If the fighter is less dangerous than the mage, the monster should definitely attack the mage because it poses the greatest threat and is more fragile. If the fighter is more dangerous than the mage, I feel very sad for the mage.

So why should the monster attack the fighter?  Wouldn't the superior tactic in all cases be to attack the mage?

Put a party of skilled PCs against a similar party of NPCs.  Watch what they do.  Most of the time, they will target the healer and wizard types first, because that's the best strategy. 

Yet that's not fun. Most DMs instinctively realize this, and have monsters use sub-par tactics, attacking the fighters because they are closer, and not targetting the healers/wizards unless forced to.  They basically keep a mental "threat list".

3E tried to solve this paradox with Attacks of Opportunity, punishing the monster for ignoring the fighter.  MMOs use threat mechanics* to determine who the monster attacks, which becomes the basic gameplay.

So that's the basic question.  If a new DM asks you "How do I determine which PC to attack?", what would be your response?

* They also use threat because collision detection is computationally expensive, especially with latency. Another reason is collision detection would allow griefing on a massive scale -- simply stand in doorways and refuse to let people by. Or fight a monster that can't hurt you badly in the doorway.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Really? What should videogames be doing instead?




Errr... You say that like it is a rhetorical question.  Ok, two can play that game.  Isn't it obvious what would be better?

Ideally, the AI behind monsters should be constructed with some sort of theory of mind such that to the human observer, he consciously or unconsciously describes the actions he sees the computer's avatar's performing as being guided by a rational mind.  We've been doing this for ages.  One of the most famous examples would be the difference between Pac Man's AI, and the AI for the ghosts in Ms. Pac Man.   

Most AI's constructed like that run short events based on examining the game state and have a bit of built in randomness in choosing what to do next.  The goal is not so much in getting the AI to behave in the smartest possible fashion, is it is to get it to behave in a manner which is believable to the observer.  Believable minds don't act in predictable manners and can't be consistantly manipulated.

Granted, AI like that is more complex (and hense more expensive), but you see that sort of AI outside of a MMORPG environment.   The reason you see really really simple AI's in a MMORPG game is simple - performance.  Simple scripts eat up few CPUs.  And while I'm not an expert in programming MMORPGs, I'd guess that there is a boost in emmersiveness if for any given event, all the clients that observe the event can predict how the monsters will move next.  So really, we are doing it this way not because it makes for a better game, or even to a certain extent because we don't know how to do it better, but because given the hardware/bandwidth contraints that an MMORPG opporates under a more sophisticated AI causes other issues.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 11, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> This seems to be a paradox to me.
> 
> If the fighter is just as dangerous as the mage, the monster should attack the mage because the mage is more fragile. If the fighter is less dangerous than the mage, the monster should definitely attack the mage because it poses the greatest threat and is more fragile. If the fighter is more dangerous than the mage, I feel very sad for the mage.
> 
> ...



The solution is to change things so that it's not the best strategy (as 4e is doing), or assume that it is the best strategy and balance things around it so it's fun anyway (as Guild Wars did).  Requiring that all enemies fought act in the same predictable but insanely stupid way is... not a good solution to the problem.





> * They also use threat because collision detection is computationally expensive, especially with latency. Another reason is collision detection would allow griefing on a massive scale -- simply stand in doorways and refuse to let people by. Or fight a monster that can't hurt you badly in the doorway.



Is collision detection really that hard?  Guild Wars doesn't seem to have any problem with it, and they don't even have monthly fees from all their players to support their server expenses.  Player-griefing is easily solved by letting players not hostile to each other pass through each other.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> If a new DM asks you "How do I determine which PC to attack?", what would be your response?




Put yourself in the mind of the monster.  Stupid or mindless monsters will use very simple strategies that more or less amount to 'close with and attack whatever is closest to me'.  Animals will use instinctive strategies (ambush, stalk, pounce, grab, trip, whatever), and will tend to become confused when presented with problems or challenges not in thier ordinary experience.  They do this because they can't evaluate the situation around them.  Smarter monsters will better assess the situation around them and make smarter decisions.  A monster that is at least as smart as you should be making the decision you would make if that monster were your PC and you had the same information that is available to the monster.   A monster that is significantly smarter than you are (say you believe you have a 16 INT and the monster has a 24 INT) should be played the same, but using all the information available to you as a DM.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 11, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Errr... You say that like it is a rhetorical question.  Ok, two can play that game.  Isn't it obvious what would be better?
> 
> Ideally, the AI behind monsters should be constructed with some sort of theory of mind such that to the human observer, he consciously or unconsciously describes the actions he sees the computer's avatar's performing as being guided by a rational mind.  We've been doing this for ages.  One of the most famous examples would be the difference between Pac Man's AI, and the AI for the ghosts in Ms. Pac Man.
> 
> ...




Well that's not entirely true, MMORPGs usually have tremendous server power and are capable of (and do) run some pretty complicated scripts. They could in fact very easily get rid of tanking mechanics and just have the monsters behave perfectly "intelligently" killing healers and mages first and ignoring the fighters. It might actually be interesting to have a game like that, although it would require a massive redesign of the rules, requiring everyone to be able to take a beating and not having any class roles. But it's chosen at least in WoW to use a traditional warrior holding off the enemy system with classes. And plenty of people enjoy it, but no game is for everyone.



			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> I hope ever so much that they decide to include rules for camping on "spawns" so serious gamers can "grind" some easy experience.
> 
> (Did I use those terms correctly?)




Your terms are correct, although a bit out of date as that was more of an EQ thing then a WoW thing. People tend to earn xp from quests in WoW.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Is collision detection really that hard?




Yes.  It's not an impossible problem to handle, but it is a really really hard problem.


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 11, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> The solution is to change things so that it's not the best strategy (as 4e is doing), or assume that it is the best strategy and balance things around it so it's fun anyway (as Guild Wars did).  Requiring that all enemies fought act in the same predictable but insanely stupid way is... not a good solution to the problem.




Change things how?  Give an example of a realistic change that would make attacking the mage a non-optimal strategy?



> Is collision detection really that hard?  Guild Wars doesn't seem to have any problem with it, and they don't even have monthly fees from all their players to support their server expenses.  Player-griefing is easily solved by letting players not hostile to each other pass through each other.




Guild Wars isn't an MMO in the traditional sense.  All areas outside of towns which are instances specifically created for your group, and only your group. It's closer to a lobby + game instances philosophy than a shared world.  Since your group are the only people in the instance, there's no opportunity for griefing.

As for letting players not hostile to each other pass through, would this apply in combat as well?  Should I be able to move through my own party members? Also, that's why you would drag a relatively weak monster over to the doorway and slowly fight it there.  Sure, people might be able to move through you, but they won't be able to move through the monster.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 11, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> But it's chosen at least in WoW to use a traditional warrior holding off the enemy system with classes. And plenty of people enjoy it, but no game is for everyone.



I actually did enjoy playing a tank in WoW.  However, I would never want to see anything like it in an actual RPG, because it makes no sense from an in-character perspective.  I can accept it in WoW only because I don't roleplay when playing a video game.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 11, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Change things how?  Give an example of a realistic change that would make attacking the mage a non-optimal strategy?



AoO's are a start.  Giving fighters ways to punish people who move past them, or block such movement altogether.  Give them abilities that make them much more dangerous to people who ignore them, like that feat I mentioned way back at the beginning of this thread.  Make the soft targets less soft or harder to get at.  (Anything from letting the healers wear armor to giving the wizards spells like mirror image.)  That sort of thing.


(I had started to write a reply to the rest of your post, but I ended up deleting it 'cuz we're getting really far off-topic for this thread.)


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> If you are an archer and two enemies are charging you, an orc with a greataxe and a goblin with a stick. Which one will you attack first? That's the aggro/threat mechanism. It's in our judgement, but it exists.




Which is precisely why its obvious that monsters shouldn't need a simple scipt forcing them to do this or that.  You explained it yourself.  A script that would be suitable for a computer game is a huge step backward from the powerful tool that we have in the form of 'our judgement'.  No computer game has an AI for its actors which is as flexible, powerful, and interesting as what referees provide to pen and paper games.  Computers games should be (and are) striving to be more like the pen and paper experience in this area, not the other way around.  That isn't to say that there aren't things that the CRPG experience can't teach the PnP designers, but it should be pretty obvious that AI replacing a DM isn't it.



> Back to the aggro/threat rules, we COULD have some guidlines regarding some types of monsters. If the group faces some unintelligent beast, which one will it attack first? The largest character? The smallest? Will it run away? How does a creature with Int lower than 5 makes that kind of choice, or other choices like fighting to death, running away when "bloodied", etc. Do orcs fight to death? Or trolls? What about a dragon? We could really have better rules or just guidelines concearning monsters behaviour in combat.




But if these are rules, then they are step backward from relying on the DM's judgement in this matter, or else they are suggestions which I might write into an encounter if I was trying to communicate to another DM how I intended the encounter to play out.  Or else, presenting questions like this would be part of the text where I would be trying to teach new DMs how to be thoughtful in thier play when running an encounter.   

More to the point, the sort 'aggro/threat' rules that MMORPGs implement are implemented for reasons that don't really apply to Pen and Paper, and if we want to achieve some sort of goal like 'making sure that a tank build can meaningfully protect a blaster build', we have other more subtle and more interesting tools with which to do it.  For example, we have, as Cadfan put it, 'better collision detection'.  A tank can make it hard for a monster to get around him, and we can punish monsters for trying to avoid the tank by giving the tank AoO or bonus if the monsters 'attention' goes elsewhere.  We can make it logical for the monster to deal with the tank if the tank can correctly position himself.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Change things how?  Give an example of a realistic change that would make attacking the mage a non-optimal strategy?




Suppose we have a class called 'Tank'.  The 'Tank' class draws an AoO on any character it threatens if that character attacks any other character.  In addition, it gains bonus damage (equivalent to the rogues sneak attack, so say +10d6 for a 20th level tank) on subsequent rounds if the monster it attacked in the prior round has not attempted to attack it before the Tank's next action.


----------



## DandD (Nov 11, 2007)

That sounds very good, and I guess that the 4th edition fighter might actually do something like that.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 11, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I actually did enjoy playing a tank in WoW.  However, I would never want to see anything like it in an actual RPG, because it makes no sense from an in-character perspective.  I can accept it in WoW only because I don't roleplay when playing a video game.




Yeah I can understand that, I always imagined the warrior just imposing himself in the way of the baddies in WoW, but admitedly it makes little sense when the creature is a titanic dragon. I've come to accept that people don't like to roleplay in CRPGs, although I do like (a certain sense of immersion in them, and WoW does a halfway decent job at that.

Don't think anyone is arguing that it's unlikely aggro would work in D&D, just that it never hurts to try. I can think of a few cases when I heard of a rule that sounded horribly and obviously bad, but in practice it turned out to work really well.


----------



## Victim (Nov 11, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> This seems to be a paradox to me.
> 
> If the fighter is just as dangerous as the mage, the monster should attack the mage because the mage is more fragile. If the fighter is less dangerous than the mage, the monster should definitely attack the mage because it poses the greatest threat and is more fragile. If the fighter is more dangerous than the mage, I feel very sad for the mage.
> 
> ...




Generally, you deal with that via positioning and buffs.  

Sure, given the choice between attacking a wizard, and attacking a fighter, it might be a no brainer to attack the mage (depending on what defensive spells he has up).  But what about when the choice is a single attack on a caster or a full attack on a fighter?  Or if you have to double move into attack position against the mage?  Against foes without super movement abilities, the mage can get some decent protection by making sure charge lines are blocked and staying more than a single move away.  At higher levels, movement options increase for getting around characters and terrain, but the wizard picks up some new tricks too.  For example, using Anticipate Teleport can prevent short range 'ports to jump to the mage (or used to port other characters into attack positions), and cross classed Tumble denies full attacks against most foes.

Tactically, if the enemies are so eager to get to grips with your casters, it's not all that difficult to separate them from their allies with battlefield control spells.  Then it's one whole group against the elements of the enemy that won initiative.  

Also, buffing spells can render the mage harder to attack or shift some of his share of dangerousness onto other characters.  Mirror Image can shut down lots of attacks.  Hasting the fighters makes them more dangerous, and thus changes the threat assessment.

In my experience, battles between similar groups of characters ended up with casters trying to stay away from the more dangerous melee guys, and the melee guys splitting between trying to get to enemy ranged characters, and trying to keep opposing melee guys from crushing our casters.  Spiking out enemies with concentrated attacks is a huge advantage.  That's one of the big advantages of archery - it's easy to deliver full damage to whatever target seems important without having to worry about positioning.  When our characters skirmished a rival party of adventurers, our sorcerer got nailed in the first round with Sudden Maximized Chain Lightning and a bunch of arrows from their ranger.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 11, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I think it's sad that they even had to _consider_ incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics.



I think it's very sad that you and so many other D&D gamers seem to think that computer games rot your brains, wither your spine, grow hair on your palms and make you blind. 



> Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?



Or perhaps because they're aiming for 4e to have more monsters per fight than 3e, so that a simple rule system for morale and/or aggression might help a DM, especially a novice, to keep the game fluid, fast and fun?

Or that they want the "defender" role to be meaningful, in that fighters and other defender characters can engage monsters and keep them from going for the soft, crunchy guys like wizards and rogues, thus actually _defending_ their fellow party members? This is something (A)D&D has _never_ been able to do well; reach weapons and AoOs in 3.*e are the best attempt so far, and they remain quite flawed.

Or maybe it is that they aren't mentally blinkering themselves by refusing to consider sources of ideas outside of what some fans think as appropriate, and are willing to try out interesting ideas, judging them by the actual, tested feasibility of those ideas in D&D context instead of some ill-conceived yearning for non-existent "pure D&D" which has never existed?

I don't know. But what we _do_ know is that the designers took an idea from MMOs, applied it to D&D, tried it out, found it wasn't doing what they wanted, _discarded it_ and replaced it with something else, which in their opinion is much better in terms of options and fun.

And despite this, most of the complainers in this thread are focusing on the first step and latching on it like gravehounds onto a meat golem, unable or unwilling to let go.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 11, 2007)

There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually *used* in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.

Maybe less crying and self-superior "I can't believe they'd even consider something from *sniff* _video games_" would be in order?

I'd been thinking about this thread before, and I bet if he'd called it an "aggression mechanic" in the article and talked about its uses, rather than its origins, nobody would have soiled themselves quite as hard. But what fun would that be?


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 11, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> I think it's very sad that you and so many other D&D gamers seem to think that computer games rot your brains, wither your spine, grow hair on your palms and make you blind.



Hey, you know what ? Everybody needs to think that they are better than other. I know many roleplayers who despise D&D ("it's a game, but a roleplaying one ?") and were crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when they learned that D20 CoC, D20 Starwars, D20 L5R or *gasp* D20 world of darkness were to be published ("we don't need no  stinking dungeon crawling munchkins !"). 
This is exactly the same reaction.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 11, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Hey, you know what ? Everybody needs to think that they are better than other. I know many roleplayers who despise D&D ("it's a game, but a roleplaying one ?") and were crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when they learned that D20 CoC, D20 Starwars, D20 L5R or *gasp* D20 world of darkness were to be published ("we don't need no  stinking dungeon crawling munchkins !").
> This is exactly the same reaction.



Which is absurd, because d20 CoC was actually quite good, and had some brilliant essays on running the genre in it. d20 L5R, however...no. Sorry, L5R doesn't work if Hida make better duelists because they've got enough hit points to eat a Crane first strike and keep on hacking.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 11, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually *used* in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.



On the second page I mentioned it already:


			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Eh, aggro is for me morale in reverse. I'm happy to see morale gone, I'm happy to see no aggro, though I liked that they gave it a try.



AND NOBODY LISTENED TO ME? LISTEN TO ME PEOPLE! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2007)

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind seeing a morale system brought back in?  

I actually like the idea of a series of "trip" events that cause a morale check and make enemies run away.


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who wouldn't mind seeing a morale system brought back in?
> 
> I actually like the idea of a series of "trip" events that cause a morale check and make enemies run away.




Not really. Sounds like adding yet another mini-system, which in turn would be overtly complex to account for all the different types of beasts you could encounter in D&D (and again differentiated for conditions, etc.., is the Owlbear hungry? Rabid? Protecting its young? etc.., etc..) for something thats essentially the point of having a GM.

Aggro systems in Computer Games try to simulate the intelligence behind creatures in absence of the real thing, i.e. they are a second-best solution. 

Now, if you have a GM, why simulate? You're already enjoying the equivalent of a MMOG where every beast and NPC is run by a real guy somewhere instead of an abstract routine.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Not really. Sounds like adding yet another mini-system, which in turn would be overtly complex to account for all the different types of beasts you could encounter in D&D (and again differentiated for conditions, etc.., is the Owlbear hungry? Rabid? Protecting its young? etc.., etc..) for something thats essentially the point of having a GM.
> 
> Aggro systems in Computer Games try to simulate the intelligence behind creatures in absence of the real thing, i.e. they are a second-best solution.
> 
> Now, if you have a GM, why simulate? You're already enjoying the equivalent of a MMOG where every beast and NPC is run by a real guy somewhere instead of an abstract routine.




The only problem is, lacking a morale mechanic, every DM I've played with has every creature fight to the death.  And, probably, I'm guilty of the same.  

But, you're probably right about it being difficult to implement without it becoming cumbersome.  :\


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 11, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually *used* in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.
> 
> Maybe less crying and self-superior "I can't believe they'd even consider something from *sniff* _video games_" would be in order?




Hey, I haven't used morale in any edition of D&D.  I don't like it for much the same reason as I don't like the proposed "aggro" rules.  Loss of DM control over the situation.



			
				Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I'd been thinking about this thread before, and I bet if he'd called it an "aggression mechanic" in the article and talked about its uses, rather than its origins, nobody would have soiled themselves quite as hard. But what fun would that be?




You're quite right.  Words and expressions have connotations that color how people react to them.   Imagine that!  

Seriously, "aggression mechanic" would have been a better term to use because D&D is a role-playing game, not a computer game.  Using a term that is used exclusively (up to this point, anyway) in computer games to refer to a table-top mechanic can only lead to confusion.

As another bad analogy, imagine if the D&D 4.0 designers desided to refer to a character utilizing a "total defense" maneuver as "castling."  I'm sure that some people who play chess might maybe sorta understand why this is done, but other wouldn't understand the term, and people who hate chess would claim that D&D was becoming too much of a boardgame. 

It's impossible to remove all the connotations from words, but it is important to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 11, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually *used* in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.




Mainly by ignoring it.

Morale didn't have much in common in aggro. It only dictated one aspect of tactics, and it hardly impinged on the rules to remove it. (Off-hand, I don't recall any core spells that forced an automatic morale check in the spell's description.)

I think aggro is bad for DnD because DMs can easily out-think a computer. I don't think CRPG or MMO mechanics are necessarily a bad thing, but I think aggro is a bad thing.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Suppose we have a class called 'Tank'. The 'Tank' class draws an AoO on any character it threatens if that character attacks any other character. In addition, it gains bonus damage (equivalent to the rogues sneak attack, so say +10d6 for a 20th level tank) on subsequent rounds if the monster it attacked in the prior round has not attempted to attack it before the Tank's next action.




This is far superior to aggro. The NPCs can still think or otherwise react in a way they feel is appropriate.


----------



## Psion (Nov 11, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> As another bad analogy, imagine if the D&D 4.0 designers desided to refer to a character utilizing a "total defense" maneuver as "castling."  I'm sure that some people who play chess might maybe sorta understand why this is done, but other wouldn't understand the term, and people who hate chess would claim that D&D was becoming too much of a boardgame.
> 
> It's impossible to remove all the connotations from words, but it is important to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.




This is true. You'd think that wizards would realize that not all of their prospective audience are WoW players. Wizards would probably be better off having their designers not communicate in language that is only understood by the MMORPG subset.

In fact, in the long term, it could prove a very negative move if they keep it up. Aside from turning off non-WoW players, they sort of stand the potential to set up a reverse "skaff effect". That is to say, one of the chief intents of the OGL was to keep people comfortable with D20 so they would move back to D&D after any gaming hiatus. Now they are keeping players comfortable with MMORPG terminology, ensuring that their players lapse back to MMORPGS after short hiatuses into D&D.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 11, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Wizards would probably be better off having their designers not communicate in language that is only understood by the MMORPG subset.




Apart from this one word, "aggro", what other MMORPG exclusive terms are used by WotC when communicating about 4e?

/M


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2007)

> This is true. You'd think that wizards would realize that not all of their prospective audience are WoW players. Wizards would probably be better off having their designers not communicate in language that is only understood by the MMORPG subset.




Considering that the MMORPG playing population absolutely dwarfs RPG's, and that even people who don't play MMORPG's understand the term, I'm not really sure that using it is a bad idea.  Yes, there are a couple of people in this thread who've asked, but, then, I believe that English was not their first language (and I truly appologise if I'm wrong there).

People understand the term.  The problem is, far too many people have this huge hang up that D&D must be kept pure and pristine from any influence from video games, regardless of the merit of the idea. 

Good grief.  This much bandwidth on something they are NOT putting into the game.


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 11, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I think aggro is bad for DnD because DMs can easily out-think a computer. I don't think CRPG or MMO mechanics are necessarily a bad thing, but I think aggro is a bad thing.




Well, the main drawback is that MMOG tend to create rather artificial situations in which the limitations of a computer-aggro routine can apply. This however, is also their biggest drawback since they are thereby limited in what they can do.



Imagine the following: 
The PCs are escorting the horse carriage of a fair lady through some dark forest where, unknown to them, a band of Hobgoblins and Goblins under the command of a ruthless Ogre-mage have laid a trap. With them is also a sneaky halfling who betrayed the route to the Ogre-mage to settle a score with the Players. 

Already there, there's a million ways to go into the battle. Do the players scout ahead? Detect part or all of the ambush? Ride on their own, or in/on the carriage? Conceal their numbers or make a big show of their arms and armor?

Once the battle commences, there's different reactions to the groups. Hobgoblins fight well coordinated, disciplined and to the death unless ordered an equally coordinated retreat. Goblins are rather skittish, trying to score shiny things and avoid fights unless pressed. The Ogre-mage wants to kidnap fair lady and the sneaky halfling will try to get to the PCs (possibly a specific one), but avoid getting into a prolonged open fight with the heavy hitters of the party. 

Now add to that battle the fair lady who might panik and head into the woods, the coachman who might or might not get involved in the fight, horses, animal companions, summoned creatures, etc... . 

PCs or NPCs might climb trees, fly, hide, turn invisible, offer the Ogre-mage a truce or negotiate, start high-speed chases on the outside of a Coach who's horses got spooked, try capture the halfling, intentionally scare or distract Goblins to confuse the fight, etc...

There is no way in hell that any "aggro-system" short 10.000 pages could account for all the eventualities in that one fight alone, and as you see from the description it is only a "low-level" scenario.

Pen&Paper RPGs like D&D should play to their strenghts in relation to MMOGs, not trying to copy MMOG-mechanics in an inferior way.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Good grief.  This much bandwidth on something they are NOT putting into the game.




Thank you for your contribution to it.   

Then again, according the front page news, there IS going to be a related approach in the MM:



> *A brief update in Rich Baker's blog: he's working on the Monster Manual, specifically writing what he calls "mission statements" for various monsters. That includes guidelines to "help the DM with target designation" for monsters (like attacking the nearest enemy, or attacking whomever damaged it the most). Baker is also working on morale notes for monsters -- which "are likely to run away when they're hurt, and which are fanatical or bloodthirsty enough to fight to the death."*




I don't really have a problem with this approach, since the "mission statements" are specifically noted as being "guidelines" and "notes" and not hard rules that a rule-lawyering player could gripe about.  

This kind of information would be helpful for a new DM in running combats, as long as it is made clear that the DM can and should deviate from these "mission statements" as logic and the story dictate.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Well, the main drawback is that MMOG tend to create rather artificial situations in which the limitations of a computer-aggro routine can apply. This however, is also their biggest drawback since they are thereby limited in what they can do.
> 
> Imagine the following:
> 
> ...




Very well said.

Oh, and I love the idea behind this encounter.  I have saved it in my idea file for later devious usage....


----------



## Psion (Nov 11, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Apart from this one word, "aggro", what other MMORPG exclusive terms are used by WotC when communicating about 4e?




I don't remember saying it was a pervasive problem. I am saying it's a problem worth avoiding.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.
> 
> Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.



I think I can agree with you. Don't look at some stupid labels like "anime" or "video game", look at the inner workings, and tell me what is wrong with it and what is good with it.

It appears to me that this is what the D&D 4 team has been doing in the past.
(The aggro mechanic is probably the same - "why is it used, how can we use it, does it work in our game?" They didn't look at the label  and said "WoW does it, therefor it's automatically good and must be done", nor "WoW does it, therefore it's automatically bad and should never be considered!")


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 11, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Morale didn't have much in common in aggro. It only dictated one aspect of tactics, and it hardly impinged on the rules to remove it.



This is different from a potential "aggro" mechanic how? It would only dictate one aspect of tactics (who the monster prefers to attack), and could surely be removed by ignoring it, with the DM decided on who the monster attacks. Where is the difference, other than that one is a legacy of D&D and another is not?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> There is no way in hell that any "aggro-system" short 10.000 pages could account for all the eventualities in that one fight alone, and as you see from the description it is only a "low-level" scenario.



This is the conclusion that the D&D designers reached as well, so it appears they agree with you. What is the contention here?


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 11, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is the conclusion that the D&D designers reached as well, so it appears they agree with you. What is the contention here?





Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?



The main direction of this thread appears to be discussion concerning the assertion that the designers should not have even considered trying to implement an "aggro" system for D&D.

If your post was not related to the assertion, I apologize. I read your conclusion that such a system for D&D would be unworkable as supporting the "they should have known it wouldn't work and therefore shouldn't have even tried" camp.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?




Here here! Bravo.
Discussion for discussion's sake.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 11, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Is collision detection really that hard?  Guild Wars doesn't seem to have any problem with it, and they don't even have monthly fees from all their players to support their server expenses.  Player-griefing is easily solved by letting players not hostile to each other pass through each other.




Of course, the main reason people seem to want collision detection is immersiveness.  Allowing your allies to pass thru you like that just serves to break that immersiveness.  May as well not have collision detection.  Most of Guild Wars happens within instances too, there are few times you have to worry about running into enemies.  Especially considering you can just open your map and whisk yourself somewhere else* 

*Been ages since I've been in GW, I know that was how it worked at one point, assume it still does


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 11, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The main direction of this thread appears to be discussion concerning the assertion that the designers should not have even considered trying to implement an "aggro" system for D&D.
> 
> If your post was not related to the assertion, I apologize. I read your conclusion that such a system for D&D would be unworkable as supporting the "they should have known it wouldn't work and therefore shouldn't have even tried" camp.




Well, I would agree that it was a pretty foolish thing to try out. After all, "aggro" is a (more or less) imperfect substitute used most commonly by computer games to get around the fact that there isn't a "real intelligence" controlling the players opponents. 

Since Pen&Paper are however defined by and large by the presence of a GM taking control of the players opponents, I can see why many people have been perplexed by the choice of the playtesters to spend time on that.

So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things. 

Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .

So I guess, I do fall in that "camp" you describe there in some regards. However, already by labeling it a "camp", you forgo looking at the variety of arguments brought against the idea of including an "aggro" mechanism, which is already vast indeed in this one thread alone.

Besides that, I wasn't aware my "camp" was under contention   As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me!


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Nov 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering that the MMORPG playing population absolutely dwarfs RPG's, and that even people who don't play MMORPG's understand the term, I'm not really sure that using it is a bad idea.  Yes, there are a couple of people in this thread who've asked, but, then, I believe that English was not their first language (and I truly appologise if I'm wrong there).




Apology grudgingly accepted.  I even tried looking the term up on Dictionary.com and Wikipedia without much luck as to how it applied to MMORPGs.  So thanks to whoever it was that beat me to the punch and asked for a definition.  I wonder if his first language was English?  Should it matter?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Besides that, I wasn't aware my "camp" was under contention   As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me!



No, because one of the defining characteristics of said camp is the idea that the designers should not have even tried it, which they obviously disagree with. If you do agree with that, then you are not in the camp I mentioned.

Remember that there is no reason for there to be only two camps. There could be dozens, each with its own point of view.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Nov 11, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> You must have missed how he used the term "_aggro_," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.
> 
> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.




The one thing that I think that most of the Anti-MMO zealots tend to overlook is that like them or not, there are more variants of such games that have come out than there have been of D&D.  On top of that, many of those games have a player base that vastly outnumbers the player base of D&D.  Lastly, the mechanics in those games get iterated on much more quickly than D&D.

The constant try-test-tweak cycle that such games bring to these ideas, and the basic fact that games that suck tend to go out of business, means that the ideas that stick around are generally worth considering.  Just because something shows up in an MMO before it shows up in D&D does not mean that the idea ought to be rejected outright.

I like the idea that the Knight class tried, a class focused on making itself the target for the benefit of the team.  Of course, as Mearls pointed out, everyone farted pretty hard on the idea of a compulsion mechanic based on a non magical effect.  However, the one thing that D&D does make difficult is the flavour text of the crunch has a huge effect on how it is likely to be accepted by the player base.

The Knight class gets alot of heat for having some crunch that does not match the flavour, despite it being some pretty decent crunch.  I would hate to see D&D's 4th edition get crapped on just because some people get annoyed at the thought of a certain flavour that they do not like despite it fitting quite decently with the crunch.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Driddle (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things.
> 
> Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does, however, leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .




I agree.
The inappropriateness of converting an AI-programmed "aggro" system for brain-piloted DMs should have been obvious *before* testing it.


----------



## megamania (Nov 11, 2007)

Is this or bad?

Reading the beginning thread there is concern on whom the creatures / foes should attack first.  There are rules about this but those were the first things I tossed out as a DM.  It becomes predictable otherwise.

Smarter foes should think about the powers of mages at a range, fighters up close etc.

Otherwise-  I think about NPC background.  racial hatreds or underestimations (for for the halflings- they are small and easy to kill)


I did see one comment about new DMs and experienced ones so I suppose this does play into it.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 11, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I agree.
> The inappropriateness of converting an AI-programmed "aggro" system for brain-piloted DMs should have been obvious *before* testing it.




So it also should have been obvious to Gary and Co back in the 70s that morale was obviously wrongbadfun and should not have been included as it just took away the DMs ability to decide how long a monster should fight?

There are many people in this thread who don't feel that it was "obviously" a bad idea to try out.  If you never try out new things, what is the point of revising a game?  I think having some guiding actions for morale aspects as well as some combat preferences in the MM is the better choice for D&D.  I have known many people who were brand new to running things and I can imagine that an actual aggro system in D&D would have helped them get into th swing of things a bit faster.  Run with the aggro system in place for awhile, get a feel for how combat should flow, then ignore aggro and follow your instincts.  Not everyone has very clear thoughts about how combat should go the first time they run.

Remember, the new edition isn't being published just for the people who have always played, it's being made for all teh people who will also be new to the hobby.  The point of the game, at least probably in Hasbro's mind, is to sell to more people, get a wider userbase, keep bringing in more money all the time.  I like the idea of more people joining us in this hobby, so getting rid of things that don't make sense is great.  3E got rid of race/class restrictions and racial level limits b/c they were just dumb.  Got rid of the whole "what do you mean my human guy can't be a mage/thief?" or "what do you mean I can't go past L12?  I'm gonna live to be 700!?!"


Oh yeah and teh reason all monsters don't automatically charge the mage or healer every time is that it gets really old and those classes would feel like they were being picked on and POOF, people decide to neevr play those classes.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 11, 2007)

Might I hazard a guess that the word 'aggro' was used here precisely because Mike is aware that the people who would make the biggest fuss about this are the ones familiar with MMO's? Maybe it's his attempt to speak directly to the people who are worrying that D&D is being turned into an MMO? We know there are MMO fans on the design team; we can figure out who they are from their blogs. I see this whole thing as evidence that their voices are not directing 4e's development as much as some seem to think.

As for the concept itself, I think the folks who are mentioning AoO's are right on the mark. Isn't that where AoO's are going? Immediate actions useable by the Defender types? With a broader range of uses (ie nailing the guy who just attacked the wizard)?


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 11, 2007)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I have known many people who were brand new to running things and I can imagine that an actual aggro system in D&D would have helped them get into th swing of things a bit faster.  Run with the aggro system in place for awhile, get a feel for how combat should flow, then ignore aggro and follow your instincts.  Not everyone has very clear thoughts about how combat should go the first time they run.
> 
> Remember, the new edition isn't being published just for the people who have always played, it's being made for all teh people who will also be new to the hobby.





I think there's some misconception of what "Aggro" means.

Noones saying there shouldn't be guidlines and tactical tips in the MM to teach you (or give you ideas) on how to effectively go about. Infact, as far as we know they will be in there.

An "aggro" system however much more integrated into the core mechanics and only ever useful if it can by accessed by PC capabilites (i.e. players able to "taunt" monsters, redirect "aggro", etc..). In that regard, it's clearly taking a DM job and putting it into the players hand for purposeful exploitation (and vice versa, see below).

I think the reverse concern M.Mearls expressed at the end of his post captures the issue quite well.



> There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D). We want DMs to make NPC fighters and paladins, and it would be really dumb if the DM had to impose a threat or aggro mechanic that dictated who the PCs had to attack.




By turning the tables, I think it's obvious to see how "aggro" potentially threatens to turns a collegial game (where DM and players collaborate to tell fantastic stories) into an antagonistic setup where the meta-level struggel about the strategic control of NPCs and PC (yes, a DM would be able to use "aggro" against players aswell) takes the focus away from the actual game (i.e. I'm a fantasy warrior battling fearsome creatures).

That, obviously, should be a no-go from the start.


----------



## Vael (Nov 11, 2007)

> So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things.
> 
> Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence.




I find it quite reasonable that they'd at least try an Aggro system, as it fits with one of their stated aims for 4e, that it's an easier game to DM. A good Aggro system would theoretically do the same things for a DM that it does for computers, reduce their workload.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 11, 2007)

So is this an issue of it being a "bad idea" to give the players nifty abilities that make the monsters do things the DM didn't tell them to?  We already have those, they're called spells and feats   Players having an ability to taunt a monster off of teh squishy mage and onto the strong warrior makes perfect sense from the view that the warrior's job is to make sure the mage (and the rest of the party) lives, so why not give him more capabilities that let him do his job better?  

If warriors have a taunt-like ability in 4E and you were playing a game set in feudal Japan, the player could use the ability and say that they challenged the samurai's lineage (implying he's a bastard or somesuch), which the samurai would be honorbound to defend, leave the mage alone, and kill the warrior who dared utter such a claim. 

He just pulled aggro back off the mage w/o dishing out a big attack, which some people say is wrong.  Maybe you're fighting a group of orcs and the warrior yells out in orcish that the big hulking orc who is stalking their healer should come challenge a real combatant and leave the men in dresses alone.  A reasonable thing to attack its manliness and insinuate that it can only be successful when fighting weaker enemies.  So off it goes to fight a true warrior.  

Storywise, both of those examples are very good uses of a taunt-like ability.  When you're looking at the book tho, all you see is "Taunt:Use this ability and one target opponent leaves his current opponent and comes at you".  Yes you'll have players who just say "Yeah I taunt the guy", but if they're enjoying the game at all and like playing in character, you'll probably have some sort of response more like what I gave as examples.

I don't think a full aggro system where you can just do a Challenging Shout and have every monster in the area come beat on you would work in D&D like it does in WoW, but a singular taunt effect like I described would be perfectly fine.  In a combat w/10 opponents it won't make a huge bit of difference, but you can give the healer enough time to get a heal on the one who needs it most while you tie up that opponent.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Nov 11, 2007)

KoshPWNZYou said:
			
		

> Might I hazard a guess that the word 'aggro' was used here precisely because Mike is aware that the people who would make the biggest fuss about this are the ones familiar with MMO's?




  Actually, I think he used it because he was entering a discussion where the term was being used.  It's a _response_ to discussions and concerns, not the launch of a wholly new discussion (cf. the link in the first post).


----------



## Driddle (Nov 11, 2007)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So it also should have been obvious to Gary and Co back in the 70s that morale was obviously wrongbadfun ...




I don't think "wrongbadfun" had been invented yet.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 11, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .




Adding a smiley doesn't make it permissible to insult other peoples intelligence or motivations.

Don't do it again, or you will be suspended. If you have any questions about this, feel free to email me.


----------



## see (Nov 11, 2007)

This sort of post is exactly the sort of thing that gives me hope for the 4e mechanics.  And thus makes me all the more disappointed in the fact that the 4e mechanics aren't going to be supporting the implicit world of thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons, but some new and untested fantasy setting.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 11, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> This sort of post is exactly the sort of thing that gives me hope for the 4e mechanics.  And thus makes me all the more disappointed in the fact that the 4e mechanics aren't going to be supporting the implicit world of thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons, but some new and untested fantasy setting.



I don't think "Points of Light" and other setting material is really a "setting," as such. You could call it a default setting _skeleton_. I think the main reason they are going to this PoL model is so that they can put out generic adventures that can be plugged in to any setting (especially homebrews that embrace the PoL style).


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 12, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Actually, I think he used it because he was entering a discussion where the term was being used.  It's a _response_ to discussions and concerns, not the launch of a wholly new discussion (cf. the link in the first post).




Ah, I didn't realize that was part of a thread. So he didn't even choose the term aggro himself, and he was directly answering the concerns of people who were on an MMO mindset. In that context, 'aggression mechanics' would actually have sounded a bit impersonal.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 12, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> I think there's some misconception of what "Aggro" means.
> 
> Noones saying there shouldn't be guidlines and tactical tips in the MM to teach you (or give you ideas) on how to effectively go about. Infact, as far as we know they will be in there.
> 
> ...




Well I think it's important to note that based on what they said, they never actually considered an aggro system where different actions generated different amounts of threat. All they considered was giving a taunt type ability to defender class characters that forced a (presumably single) enemy to attack them. Many people were talking as if the aggro thing was a set of rules that forced every monster to attack certain targets, but that would seem to be a completely unsupported overreaction.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

I suddenly realize what the "points of light" reference means!: 

Computer screens shining in darkened rooms around the world as gamers lose track of the hours while playing World of Warcraft.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 12, 2007)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well I think it's important to note that based on what they said, they never actually considered an aggro system where different actions generated different amounts of threat. All they considered was giving a taunt type ability to defender class characters that forced a (presumably single) enemy to attack them. Many people were talking as if the aggro thing was a set of rules that forced every monster to attack certain targets, but that would seem to be a completely unsupported overreaction.




That I'm not so sure about. Mearls actually mentions 'monster' scripts' in his post. I think the 'mission statement' that Rich Baker told us about was originally designed as the aggro mechanic and was already written into the monster entries they've completed. They just toned it down to a guideline after they decided not to enforce it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 12, 2007)

> Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does, however, leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .




Why?

There are other points where the D&D game has, for a long time, told DMs or Players what their characters may do.

And those, like this mechanic, have been largely discarded as "too limiting."


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is different from a potential "aggro" mechanic how? It would only dictate one aspect of tactics (who the monster prefers to attack), and could surely be removed by ignoring it, with the DM decided on who the monster attacks. Where is the difference, other than that one is a legacy of D&D and another is not?




The aggro system is not easy to remove, at least none of the examples I've seen.

The aggro system, as described (possibly hysterically, though) is that the monster must attack whoever has the highest aggro rating (eg whoever did the most damage, or perhaps slightly more complex, eg based on whoever is taunting it, whoever healed the most hit points last round, etc) instead of leaving that to the DM's judgement. Also that adds a layer of math that is just not necessary.

This is quite different from a "monster script" which is *not* codified into rules and the DM is free to ignore. This is simply advice, not aggro, at least from the way I view it.

The knight had several "aggro" abilities, some of which were well-designed, and others of which amounted to non-FX mind control and drew lots of negative attention (and just happened to bear some similarity to the way MMOs and other CRPGs deal with the issue).

Morale, by contrast hardly impinged on the rules, and wasn't written into the abilities of any of the core classes. It was easy to toss out or ignore if you didn't want to use it.

I think MMOs and other computer games use aggro systems because a computer isn't actually intelligent, and so they need something that simulates intelligence. I'm going to ignore the obvious metagaming component that applies to some games (eg "manage your aggro to beat Illidan!") A human DM doesn't need that tool, and if it's complex and/or hard-coded into the game rules it would cause far more problems than they solve.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 12, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .




This sounds dangerously close to an insult by suggesting that they are either incompetent ("serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing their"), deceptive ("their underlying motivations for D&D 4th"), or stupid ("or simply their intelligence").

I find it funny that several "anti-4e" types often end up suggesting that the people involved in some of the most well-designed and popular games in the past decade lack competence, honesty, or intelligence, then expect us to respect their opinions...


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 12, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This sounds dangerously close to an insult by suggesting that they are either incompetent ("serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing their"), deceptive ("their underlying motivations for D&D 4th"), or stupid ("or simply their intelligence").
> 
> I find it funny that several "anti-4e" types often end up suggesting that the people involved in some of the most well-designed and popular games in the past decade lack competence, honesty, or intelligence, then expect us to respect their opinions...




A moderator warned him about this post already.  It's all cool.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 12, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> A moderator warned him about this post already.  It's all cool.




Hadn't noticed. Well... carry on.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Nov 12, 2007)

Aggro and Morale are not the same things.  Aggro refers to how a given creature determines who to attack.  Morale is simply a system for determining when a creature realizes it cannot win and then acts accordingly.

(Psi)SeveredHead is correct. A Combat Script is not an Aggro system.  It is more of a combination of Aggro, Morale, and an attack routine.  All it does is suggest who a creature will likely attack, how it will do so, and when it will probably run away.  In all likely hood, it will probably do so in a manner consistent with the flavour of the creature.

Combat scripts for very simple creatures are not really needed, but they do help.  As has been noted, animals kill for food, territory, and to protect its young.  In most cases, it wont keep fighting if it is losing a fight.  Mindless undead are also easy.

But when you start to add in special abilities and spells, and the choice between ranged weapons and melee, that is where a combat script gets useful.

Consider Orc's and Hobgoblins.  I have seen plenty of posts suggesting that one gets dropped entirely, because who really needs two monsters that are 1 HD?

Going by what is in the current MM, it states that Hobgoblins have a strong grasp of tactics and are capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans.  Orcs favour doing the most damage in the least time, attack from ambush, and are prone to go for betrayal.  How do you manifest that difference?

I would have Orcs typically charge into melee, and gang up on targets.  They would try to attack at night, and open with a volley of Javelins to soften up the opponents.  They will charge in, and keep swinging until you either defeat them or they kill you.  They probably do not take prisoners.

I would have Hobgoblins more willing to attack in daylight, and I would stick to using their bows as long as possible, using cover.  If they even start to lose, they wil retreat and regroup, using the time to let opponents spells expire.  They are only out to win, so they will offer a surrender and take prisoners.  If they are losing, they may offer a truce to save their own skin.

My point?  An encounter with 10 hard hitting Orcs in a fierce melee who are determined to kill you is a much different encounter than 10 archers who keep their distance and try to wear you down and are determined to survive.  You could justify running both types of encounter with one or the other.  But the combat script and the flavour text together give a DM a much better idea of how to handle an unexpected situation.  

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## SteveC (Nov 12, 2007)

I wanted to thank TwinBahamut, WolfSpider, and Gloombunny for taking a moment to answer my question. For some reason this topic has stirred up a serious amount of anger that frankly I don't get, but the three of you have pretty much explained the problems to me.

It seems like we're talking two entirely separate problems here that are at best tangentially related. In MMORPGS, we largely have a technology problem where characters and monsters can move over each other and get at weaker characters even if there are stronger meat shields in front. I see that as largely a technology issue, and an agro system makes some degree of sense if you want to have fragile characters like wizards not be constantly dying.

With that in mind, it seems like there's also a problem that wizard-like characters are simply too weak, and martial characters just can't do enough damage to compete for top of the food chain in terms of what will draw monsters attention. To me that sounds like a game play issue, and something that relates a lot more to D&D.

D&D does have a system where monsters can't just attack squishy, protected wizards without consequences, but a fair bit could be done to make that easier to work with. If I remember correctly, there is a feat that let's you stop a character's movement with an AoO (outside of making a trip attack, which would obviously do that if it's successful).

Additionally, I play a Crusader in a current D&D game who has a stance that gives any of my friends +4 to their AC from attacks by any opponent that I threaten. Add to that a shield block counter that gives a bonus to AC, and I find that I get attacked about 75% of the time, which works for me fairly well.

It seems like building on those mechanics would be a more effective way to create the desired goal of making a tank like character the preferred target: if you make that character essential to the defense of the group, they have to be the first to fall.

Beyond that, making the fighter or similar character comparable to the wizard in terms of the damage they can do seems to make even more sense: if you can't ignore the fighter to get to the wizard, you largely have to deal with the fighter first.

With all of that said, is there room for some kind of taunt/trick action in D&D that forces the hand of your opponent? I think there is, but I would put it in the realm of NPC only actions, much like how you can't use Diplomacy on a PC. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an effect in the game that could make an intelligent but low-willed opponent made enough to focus their attacks on the source of their aggression. I just think that the abilities of the Knight are not worded in the best way possible.

It seems like 4E will not be doing much in this area, which will likely be a good thing, because if the designers can't make something that's both fun and interesting, what is it doing in the game in the first place?

Mike Mearls blog pretty much says all of that...they tried it, it didn't work, and now it's gone. From what everyone is saying, it certainly seems to me like exploring the possibilities of such rules was a good thing, something that would serve to streamline the game significantly if it was done right. As they couldn't find a way to do it right, it's not going in the game. What's the problem?

--Steve


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 12, 2007)

> Aggro and Morale are not the same things. Aggro refers to how a given creature determines who to attack. Morale is simply a system for determining when a creature realizes it cannot win and then acts accordingly.




Any Morale system that forces a creature to run away at a certain point dictates the creature's actions as much as the Knight's Challenge aggro method does.

Just showing that mechanics that dictate a creature's actions were in D&D long before Aggro popped up in MMO's.

But it seems this thread is more about people who think that MMO's are somehow inherently tainted and that D&D should remain pure without touching it, and those that think that any idea deserves the ol' college try. 

My sympathies do not lie with those who already have an assumed bias.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 12, 2007)

I wonder...is the objection to aggro/morale rules not the rules themselves, but rather that they would become rules that the players would learn and "game" (for lack of a better word)?

I wouldn't have a problem with a rule that said "creatures tend to flee after taking 75% damage," but having a player tell me that's what my critters were doing would bother me.

I already have a rule for aggro for my intelligent opponents: *gak the mage*. This only doesn't happen when said gaking puts the character at extreme danger. It would seriously tick me off if a player told me that my monster must charge by the other six characters to attack the wizard based on that aggro rule.

I think that's the major problem...does that make sense?

--Steve


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But it seems this thread is more about people who think that MMO's are somehow inherently tainted and that D&D should remain pure without touching it, and those that think that any idea deserves the ol' college try.
> 
> My sympathies do not lie with those who already have an assumed bias.




Thinking that any idea deserves "the ol' college try" is a bias.  It's a bias against discrimenatory behavior, as if discrimenation were a bad thing.  But, discrimenating between two ideas isn't necessarily a bad thing despite the fact that we most frequently encounter the term in a negative context.  We engage in this sort of preselection all the time for good and sufficient reasons.  There are some ideas that we conclude aren't worth trying.  There are some experiences that we conclude are so negative that they aren't worth having.  Sometimes we answer the question, "How do you know unless you try?", with "No.  It's obvious.  I don't need experiential knowledge to affirm what I know." 

A good designer is a good designer in part because they can discrimenate between a large number of ideas and select from the very broad space of possible solutions, one or two worth trying.  A good designer sees the root problem and looks at how to address it.  A good designer needs to do that because in the real world, you don't have unlimited time for play testing.  A designer that can detect and discrimenate against bad ideas at minimum saves his company money, and generally produces a superior product.  The closer your first approximation is to a good solution, the better off you are not just in terms of reduced cost of development, but in the likelihood of finding a good solution, and the elegance your final solution is likely to have.

My bias against this idea has nothing to do with not liking computer games.  It has to do with understanding pen and paper games and computer games and knowing why the things that work well in one work, and hense whether or not they would work in a different environment.  Each 'platform' has advantages over the other.  Taking something intended to correct the deficiences in one (say 'readied actions' in pen and paper games or 'aggro' in computer games) and apply it to the other platform where that deficiency doesn't exist is ridiculous.

'Aggro' rules and core gameplay based on the manipulation of same may be perfectly good design in an MMORPG that doesn't have robust collision detection (for whatever reason), or exactitude in tactical position (because of latency), or any number of other problems to correct.  Certainly it seems to work for WoW.  But that in no way indicates that it is something worth adopting to a completely different situation.  A good designer who thought that the core issue 'aggro' was designed to address (for example, allowing a tank to be a tank) needed to be addressed in a PnP would be better off looking amongst the tools we already have in PnP games and seeing if something can be used.


----------



## Imp (Nov 12, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Any Morale system that forces a creature to run away at a certain point dictates the creature's actions as much as the Knight's Challenge aggro method does.



No it doesn't, morale failure is much more flexible (unless, of course, it's not) – it doesn't dictate where exactly that creature has to run to, it doesn't have to dictate how it runs, whether it surrenders, etc., whereas a knight's challenge dictates many creatures' attack paths.  That said I personally am agnostic about "aggro mechanics" as long as they're simple, flexible, and don't generate particular player expectations.  I'm not particularly in favor of them because it seems like it would generate a lot of extra dice rolls for little gain, in other words, I doubt PnP aggro would satisfy any of those qualities, but the knight's challenge didn't especially bug me.

Don't really see the need for piling on the designers for trying something and not going with it, myself.  Shrug.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 12, 2007)

The uninformed MMORPG bashing makes me miss the good old days of uninformed anime bashing.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Thinking that any idea deserves "the ol' college try" is a bias.  It's a bias against discrimenatory behavior, as if discrimenation were a bad thing.  But, discrimenating between two ideas isn't necessarily a bad thing despite the fact that we most frequently encounter the term in a negative context.  We engage in this sort of preselection all the time for good and sufficient reasons.  There are some ideas that we conclude aren't worth trying.  There are some experiences that we conclude are so negative that they aren't worth having.  Sometimes we answer the question, "How do you know unless you try?", with "No.  It's obvious.  I don't need experiential knowledge to affirm what I know."



This is all true, but I don't agree that it has anything to do with the examination of the aggro mechanic.

Even though I detest Aggro mechanics, I admit that there is a perfectly good reason for the people at WotC to try out those idea. They are a familiar system that offers possible new tactical options for Defender characters. That is enough to make them worth a second look.

Now, rules like "give all characters the abiity to spontaneously regenerate from residual cellular matter after they die" are well beyond the realm of consideration, and a designer doesn't need to think twice about that kind of decision.

However, I think that aggro/taunt mechanics are worth the second look the WotC people gave them, and I just disagree that their rejection was somehow "obvious". After all, who knows? Maybe looking at a flawed, but still functional idea will lead to new ideas that work great. I have seen far more improbable creative leaps.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I think it's sad that they even had to _consider_ incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics.
> 
> Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?
> 
> Makes me wonder what other MMO-think they've already embraced -- or hopefully, discarded.




Or maybe they were facing the fact that even though 3.x fighters are much more interesting and flexible than earlier OD&D Fighting men, or 1st/2nd edition fighters, they still have a hard time doing their job-- being the protective barrier between the weaker characters and themselves. The idea that the fighters form the front rank behind which others use magic and ranged attacks is easy to have monsters just ignore.  Even though it should really take some concentrated work to break past a shield wall or a pair of armed defenders without consequences.

A simple idea would have been a mechanic to make attackers have to attack the front rank defenders. A simple, but apparently bad idea from their playtest. Might have worked in a miniatures game or a wargame, but not right for a RPG. So they threw out the idea and came up with something else.

Why this distresses people is baffling. Every job and project i have ever worked on has had a moment where we had a "great" idea that, in retrospect, turned out to be really stupid. Seems a normal part of human decision making.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I suddenly realize what the "points of light" reference means!:
> 
> Computer screens shining in darkened rooms around the world as gamers lose track of the hours while playing World of Warcraft.




Why the computer-game-bashing? It's just another gaming hobby. Not your bag? Great. 

Frankly, your reaction to computer gaming is similar to the reaction most non-gamers I know have toward role-playing-- that it's  terrible waste of money and time that can be spent on "real" pursuits. The tone of great superiority to MMO players is baffling.

IMNSHO gaming is gaming is gaming -- card, board, RPG, LARP, CRPGs... and bashing on the kind of gaming that doesn't float your boat seems a strange pursuit, and infused with a sense of superiority that seems out of line when you consider you are comparing people's entertainment and hobbies.


----------



## Thundershield (Nov 12, 2007)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> Why the computer-game-bashing? It's just another gaming hobby. Not your bag? Great.
> 
> Frankly, your reaction to computer gaming is similar to the reaction most non-gamers I know have toward role-playing-- that it's  terrible waste of money and time that can be spent on "real" pursuits. The tone of great superiority to MMO players is baffling.
> 
> IMNSHO gaming is gaming is gaming -- card, board, RPG, LARP, CRPGs... and bashing on the kind of gaming that doesn't float your boat seems a strange pursuit, and infused with a sense of superiority that seems out of line when you consider you are comparing people's entertainment and hobbies.



Merely quoting for the truth of it.

As a D&D player and CRPG player, I have thought about why the designers decided such a mechanic was relevant in the first place.

I didn't want to look at it solely as a D&D player or as a CRPG player, as that would either have me whining about how they were making it "not D&D anymore" or nodding like a fanboy and thinking "that's what tanks are supposed to do".

Instead I came to this conclusion: MMORPGs have a tendency to take the roles of the classic fantasy party and boil it down to easy-to-work-with simplicity. As a D&D player, I'd think "what is a fighter", but I'd neglect the equally-important question "what is a fighter supposed to do". In 3E, any monster could simply ignore the supposed tank and go straight for the squishies as the Fighter had no way of keeping the monster's attention on him, meaning his boatload of hit points only meant he was a less desirable target.

I realize that moving away from the pure-bred D&D inclination of designing stuff based solely on concept is something that might rub some grognards the wrong way, but let's face it: That's the inclination that's made the Fighter as hopelessly useless in high-level play as they are today. Any monster with a grain of wits goes for the Wizard first, then the Cleric or Rogue, and lastly the Fighter. Great job holding the monster back, Bob.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 12, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I wonder...is the objection to aggro/morale rules not the rules themselves, but rather that they would become rules that the players would learn and "game" (for lack of a better word)?




That's only part of it.



> I wouldn't have a problem with a rule that said "creatures tend to flee after taking 75% damage,"




That's not aggro. That's a suggestion.



> but having a player tell me that's what my critters were doing would bother me.




That would bother me too.



> I already have a rule for aggro for my intelligent opponents: *gak the mage*.




That's not aggro. They'll gak the mage even if they get initiative and the mage hasn't acted yet. They're not forced to gak the mage either (if for whatever reason circumstances make that a bad idea).



> It would seriously tick me off if a player told me that my monster must charge by the other six characters to attack the wizard based on that aggro rule.




If a hard-coded aggro rule said they had to do that, I would be ticked too. (Same if the monsters "had" to charge the fighter because he used his taunt ability.) I would be ticked off if either the players said that (but I could tell them to cut that out) but would be more ticked off if the rules said I had to do that, and even more ticked off if the rules were complex and hard-coded.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 12, 2007)

KoshPWNZYou said:
			
		

> The ideal is an intelligent DM who's intelligent enough to separate his intelligence from the intelligence of his monsters.




Yeah, ideally, but I'm sometimes guilty of this, and play monsters too intelligently, tactically for their Int.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The uninformed MMORPG bashing ...




That's a broad stroke that's insulting to the many MMO(RP)G-bashing people who _are_ informed. Probably need to be careful with that.

Eight pages of thread so far. Goodness -- this topic certainly has a lot of aggro!


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 12, 2007)

*shrug* It seems like it might be an obvious bad idea, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be tested.  How many times have people posted an idea that they thought was great but wouldnt work in your campaign for one reason or another?  How many times have you tried out an idea that seems like it'd work out, on paper, but failed abysmally in practice?  

Heck, even if it IS an obviously bad idea, it might be worth it to SHOW why it's a bad idea in case anyone wants to try it.  I'm not seeing why people are getting all upset because they wanted to see if it'd work.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm glad they tested it.  I'm glad they ditched it, but I'm glad they tested it.  I'd be very surprised if they didn't get _something_ that worked well out of this; such as a new feat/ability, spell or a skill use.  

And that is exactly why I'm glad they tried it.  It didn't work but now they know _why_ it didn't work (besides the "it's stupid" answer).  They know that it has problems at locations A, B and C.  It's possible that they thought  it would have problems at point D but that D worked well and might be included.  Maybe they thought it would work well at point E but it didn't... at all and so now they know to avoid E in the future.

Sometimes knowing why something doesn't work is more valuable than simply knowing it doesn't.  New information can bring the designers to look at new directions they didn't look at before or even consider before.  If Mearls and Noonan (and the rest) hadn't tried aggro now because it was "obviously" a bad idea we may not have a half-dozen cool fighter feats in the new edition.  And even worse, whoever replaces them at some point in the future may add aggro since there wouldn't be the documentation as to why it didn't work in the first place.

So WotC, please - go try new things no matter if the idea comes from TV, movies, literature (both recent and not-so-recent), comic books, anime or video games!  Discover why they do and do not work and make D&D even better than it is now!


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...  I'm not seeing why people are getting all upset because they wanted to see if it'd work.




There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The aggro system is not easy to remove, at least none of the examples I've seen.



That one of the points here. No one has seen the system they tried to implement, so any gnashing of teeth about it is based on pure speculation. They didn't provide any specific examples, presumably since they decided it was a bad idea and moved on.

That, and they already dropped it. Yet some are up in arms that they even experimented with it.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yet some are up in arms that they even experimented with it.




There's no pleasing some people…


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 12, 2007)

Today, for the first time, I put an EnWorlder on Ignore.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Today, for the first time, I put an EnWorlder on Ignore.




Announcing it makes you appear petulant. Taking the "high road" requires silence and stealth ... like a ninja -- no one should even know the deed has been done.


----------



## Goobermunch (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.




List please?

Then support for claim that it's "for no other reason than it's profitable-trendy."

--G


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.



And to branch off on that...I have no problems with any part of a MMO game making it into DND so long as it works.  To add on to my previous statement, I also dont under why the fact something might have appeared in a video game first means it should be locked in a box and never be considered at all.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> List please?




I said "concern." If we had an actual list of the MMO(RP)G adaptations already embraced, this thread would be much, much, MUCH longer.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I said "concern." If we had an actual list of the MMO(RP)G adaptations already embraced, this thread would be much, much, MUCH longer.




So in other words all this "concern" is much ado about absolutely nothing at all.

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.



What creates this concern?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Announcing it makes you appear petulant. Taking the "high road" requires silence and stealth ... like a ninja -- no one should even know the deed has been done.



I guess he is not trying to take the high road, but ensure that he no longer feels forced to reacts to posts that create negative emotions (anger, hatred, disappointment?) in him. And that the ignored one no longer tries to post something directed at him, since he will miss it anyway.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> All this "concern" is much ado about absolutely nothing at all.






			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What creates this concern?




The unknown.   Drives most of the questions that show up on this board. You hadn't noticed? When people don't know something for certain, they become concerned, ask questions and second-guess the outcomes. Basic human behavior.

And we won't know if those concerns will be borne out until after the fact. ... So it's just as _silly _ to assume everything's fine (ala "much ado about nothing") as it is to be worried.

In the meantime, we discuss.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> So it's just as _silly _ to assume everything's fine (ala "much ado about nothing") as it is to be worried.




"There is noting to fear but fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt 

I'll chose to be silly and assume everything is alright. It's such an enormous waste of energy to go for another eight or so months worrying about something that very likely won't be a problem.

So I chose not to be worried. Try it, it's quite liberating.

/M


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'll chose to be silly ... Try it, it's quite liberating.




 Mmmmm-yeah. We'll take that under consideration.

... But while we get distracted on the value of blind trust and valid market feedback about stupid mistakes, WORLD OF WARCRAFT IS TAKING OVER OUR HOBBY!!!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The unknown.   Drives most of the questions that show up on this board. You hadn't noticed? When people don't know something for certain, they become concerned, ask questions and second-guess the outcomes. Basic human behavior.
> 
> And we won't know if those concerns will be borne out until after the fact. ... So it's just as _silly _ to assume everything's fine (ala "much ado about nothing") as it is to be worried.
> 
> In the meantime, we discuss.



What I am missing in many cases is a balanced perspective.

Yes, there are some design aspects we don't know much about. We have some concerns.
A balanced perspective would be to present this concern, describe how it is arrived, in a reasonable manner, and asking wether other interpretations are possible.

If a mechanic is described that could lead to a negative/undesired effect depending on the implementation, why automatically assume that the mechanic will work exactly in this negative/undesired way? Why assume that the designers didn't notice it (while at the same time pretty obvious for the poster) and did not create an implementation that addresses the concern? 
That doesn't mean it's unneccessariy or ill-advised to inquire about it. 
Variant 1: 
"Mechanic X is ripped off of WoW and that totally sucks because it always leads to Y and Z", Variant 2: 
"Mechanic X looks similar to a mechanic from WoW. I wonder if the designer considered the negative side effect Y and Z and how they addressed it. Especially Y would probably hurt in D&D, and I have no idea yet how they can do X without it. Any thoughts?"

Variant 2 reads a lot more interesting and more importantly, a lot less aggressive. (There are no guarantees that all responses remain inaggressive, but you can't really account for the behaviour of other posters, only for your own, and trying to set a good example.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Remember that there is no reason for there to be only two camps. There could be dozens, each with its own point of view.



Nah, that was just a belief found one or two decades after the end of the Cold War. I think we're over it today and back to the old "Black & White" "If you're not with us, you're against us" paradigm. It's really easier that way. (I hear they will remove the yellow traffic light soon, too)


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Nov 12, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> However, I think that aggro/taunt mechanics are worth the second look the WotC people gave them, and I just disagree that their rejection was somehow "obvious". After all, who knows? Maybe looking at a flawed, but still functional idea will lead to new ideas that work great. I have seen far more improbable creative leaps.






			
				king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> Every job and project i have ever worked on has had a moment where we had a "great" idea that, in retrospect, turned out to be really stupid. Seems a normal part of human decision making.






			
				D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Heck, even if it IS an obviously bad idea, it might be worth it to SHOW why it's a bad idea in case anyone wants to try it.  I'm not seeing why people are getting all upset because they wanted to see if it'd work.






			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Sometimes knowing why something doesn't work is more valuable than simply knowing it doesn't.  New information can bring the designers to look at new directions they didn't look at before or even consider before.
> 
> (...)
> 
> So WotC, please - go try new things no matter if the idea comes from TV, movies, literature (both recent and not-so-recent), comic books, anime or video games!  Discover why they do and do not work and make D&D even better than it is now!




*/em basks in the dogpile of sweet reason.*

Unwillingness to test one's own convictions is the very root of ideology.  :\


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Mmmmm-yeah. We'll take that under consideration.
> 
> ... But while we get distracted on the value of blind trust and valid market feedback about stupid mistakes, FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD!!!




Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 12, 2007)

> There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.




You missed the part where they said the reason for 4e is to make the D&D game better.

If WoW stuff made it into the redesig, it's because it makes the D&D game better.

Aggro was one of those that definitely should have been tried to see if it made the D&D game better.

It didn't.

They move on.

Why so scared of the MMO influence, if it can make D&D a better game?


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 12, 2007)

Silent Cartographer said:
			
		

> */em basks in the dogpile of sweet reason.*
> 
> Unwillingness to test one's own convictions is the very root of ideology.  :\




So true.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The unknown.   Drives most of the questions that show up on this board. You hadn't noticed? When people don't know something for certain, they become concerned, ask questions and second-guess the outcomes. Basic human behavior.
> 
> And we won't know if those concerns will be borne out until after the fact. ... So it's just as _silly _ to assume everything's fine (ala "much ado about nothing") as it is to be worried.
> 
> In the meantime, we discuss.



And this is the crux of it. I'll tell you why I'm not overly concerned. The people who are designing 4E have personalities, design philosophies and a physical track record of producing products that I like, so I'm not concerned. It all comes down to the fact that I trust Mike Mearls, just like I trusted Rodney before him when he made Star Wars Saga Edition. It will all be okay, *even if I don't like some of the things they do* (Warlocks, "all about elves" et al).

That's all.

--Steve


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> ... But while we get distracted on the value of blind trust and valid market feedback about stupid mistakes, WORLD OF WARCRAFT IS TAKING OVER OUR HOBBY!!!



Word of Warcraft is a PnP game? I was under the impression it's a video game.


----------



## lkj (Nov 12, 2007)

Anyone noticed that Rodney Thompson has addressed this discussion?

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=21806&pagemode=2&blogid=2100


Toward the end of the post. Particularly he notes that we shouldn't assume that the aggro mechanic that they tried was the same as that from WoW.


Anyway . . .

AD


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> Anyone noticed that Rodney Thompson has addressed this discussion?
> 
> http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=21806&pagemode=2&blogid=2100
> 
> ...



I don't see why facts should get in the way of uninformed speculation.


----------



## lkj (Nov 12, 2007)

Well, on the bright side, that comment of Rodney's about the mechanic where 'no one dies' or 'fails out' should spark a lovely whole new discussion. He does point out that it already exists, by his definition, in D&D, but as you say, speculation is fun.

AD

PS: I really do think that this kind of speculation about a game is fun, so long as one doesn't get too upset about it. I just don't think it'll have much impact on my evaluation of the game when it comes out. Still, fun to read the discussions . . .


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I don't see why facts should get in the way of uninformed speculation.




I don't think there is any speculation going on, or to the extent that there is, both sides have the same basic assumptions.  The argument basically comes down to:

"I'm glad they tried it and then didn't do it."

vs.

"I wish they didn't try it at all."

If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is reassuring, you come down on one side of the debate.  If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is not reassuring, you come down on the other.  But basically everyone agrees that the unseen mechanics were bad, if only because the designers said so.  No one is speculating particularly over what those mechanics were.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> IIf you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is reassuring, you come down on one side of the debate.



But we don't know what they actually tried to do. No details have been provided, other than the fact that they did not use a system like WoW's. How do you know you don't want them do something if you don't know precisely what they tried to do?

One side is speculating ("what they were trying was doomed to fail"), because _we don't know what they tried_. The other is not ("it's a good thing they're trying out new ideas, and judging them critically").


----------



## lkj (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think there is any speculation going on, or to the extent that there is, both sides have the same basic assumptions.  The argument basically comes down to:
> 
> "I'm glad they tried it and then didn't do it."
> 
> ...




I don't know. It seems like which side you fall down on (and I think either side is fine in the end) is influenced by your impression of how the mechanics were implemented (to use Rodney's term). If you think they ported WoW directly into D&D you are more likely to be 'not reassured' than if you think they just used some mechanic to encourage creatures to attack certain types of characters. At least I think so, given that the first (direct port) is probably more obviously not workable whereas the second (using the concept with more flexible mechanics) could potentially work out.

I mean, I don't like the idea much either way, but I'm not too upset they messed around with it in a thoughtful manner (if you take Rodney at his word).

Just my thoughts on the matter.

AD


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> But we don't know what they actually tried to do.




What they tried is irrelevant.  We know that they didn't adopt it, and everyone assumes that they did so because what they tried didn't work.  No one (at least no one making themselves particularly visible) is speculating that they should have used different mechanics and then it might have been a good idea.

And no one that I know of is suggesting that they would rather that the game have some formal pervasive aggro mechanic as part of core game play, and everyone is pretty much against them doing it.  It's just some of the people that are against such a game system would rather they didn't even bother testing one, and some people think that they should have. 

Neither side knows or particularly cares what it is _exactly_ that they tried to do.  It is enough to know that it limited DM (and player) freedom of action, presumably by forcing monsters or PC's to favor attacking certain opponents over other ones or else it wouldn't have been compared to 'aggro'.  I could speculate about what that mechanic looked like, but it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 12, 2007)

Let's go ahead and quote Rodney here:


> There's a discussion on ENWorld right now where some fans are basically saying, "We don't like the concept of X mechanic, and we're upset that Wizards even tried it, even though they discarded it." I think that's just senseless, and if you're one of those folks then I'm sorry but I think you're wrong. There is no reason not to try out a certain type of game mechanic if there is even a hint that it might benefit the game. Shutting yourself off to ideas, even ones that on the surface seem incompatible with what you're trying to accomplish, is both arrogant and closed-minded. The argument is "Clearly this is a bad mechanic for D&D, so Wizards is obviously screwing things up by even considering it" when it's certainly not clear by any definition of the word. There is no reason not to experiment with a certain type of mechanic, provided that you keep a clear vision of what you want the mechanic to do, what its repercussions will be on your game, and that you are willing to discard it if it proves to be a bad idea.
> 
> I think the real issue in that debate is that some people are letting themselves be blinded by specific mechanics instead of looking at larger issues. Basically, there are mechanical concepts and mechanical implementations. Mechanical concepts should absolutely be looked at across genres, I think. For example, one of the mechanical concepts popular in the Euro games that I like is that no one "dies" or "fails out" of the game, and everyone plays until the end. Look at Catan, Carcassone, etc. for examples. This is a concept that's already in D&D, though people might argue it's not. The key is not the concept, but the implementation. D&D currently implements this concept by making resurrection both possible and (in the grand scheme of things) relatively easy. Paranoia accomplishes it by giving you clones. D&D and other games ALSO accomplish it by allowing you to roll up a new character and join in.
> 
> I just don't think there's any reason to jump on the D&D designers for looking into alternative mechanics. I also think people are jumping to conclusions; just because someone says "We looked into an aggro mechanic" doesn't mean "we tried to use WoW's aggro mechanic." It just means "we looked into a method of encouraging a unit to attack a defender character" which is not the same thing. It's the whole mechanical concepts vs. mechanical implementation, and I think good game design comes from being open to the former (even if you ultimately reject it) and being able to create the latter in such a way that it fits your game.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> everyone is pretty much against them doing it.



By "everyone," I presume you mean "me and people who appear to agree with me," rather than the standard definition of the word.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> I don't know. It seems like which side you fall down on (and I think either side is fine in the end) is influenced by your impression of how the mechanics were implemented (to use Rodney's term). If you think they ported WoW directly into D&D you are more likely to be 'not reassured' than if you think they just used some mechanic to encourage creatures to attack certain types of characters.




No, that's not it at all.  It's not a specific implementation of the idea that I think is bad.  I could care less if the mechanic was 'video gamey' or reminiscent of WoW.  Not everything similar to a video game is bad.  For example, to me feats always seem inspired by Fallout, right down to the 1/3 levels.   It's the whole approach of narrowly defining for DMs how monsters should behave which was under consideration that I don't like.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> By "everyone," I presume you mean "me and people who appear to agree with me," rather than the standard definition of the word.




You presume wrong.  

By 'everyone' I mean, 'Everyone involved in this conversation.'  

Presumably there may be some people out there that speculate that the mechanics in question were just what D&D needs and that wish that they had kept whatever 'aggro' mechanics that they ultimately dropped, but if there are, they aren't doing a very good job of making themselves heard.  If I've overlooked them, I apologize.

However, even the ones that don't agree with me and who are extremely happy that the mechanics were tried ultimately also seem to agree that its a good thing that they were dropped.


----------



## lkj (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, that's not it at all.  It's not a specific implementation of the idea that I think is bad.  I could care less if the mechanic was 'video gamey' or reminiscent of WoW.  Not everything similar to a video game is bad.  For example, to me feats always seem inspired by Fallout, right down to the 1/3 levels.   It's the whole approach of narrowly defining for DMs how monsters should behave which was under consideration that I don't like.




That's totally fine. I don't have any problem with you thinking that you would never want a mechanic that forces DM's to make their monsters behave in a certain way. And you would prefer if they never tried such a mechanic. And it worries you that they did. All good.

I guess that from reading over the thread, not your posts in particular, I get the impression that some people think they were fools for experimenting with it (Why would they try anything so obviously doomed to failure?). I think that the details of how they tried it therefore will definitely affect whether you think it was a horrific idea or not. 

Basically, I'm not sure that how you framed the argument is an entirely accurate description of the whole argument here. It's certainly true for you, as you state it that way.

But just hypothetically-- If they were trying a mechanic that forced all monsters to take rigorously defined actions under every circumstance, I'd be more uncomfortable with their judgment than if they made it so that stupid monsters will attack the big brute with the sword 60% of the time because stupid monsters understand a threat from a sword better than from magic.

So, I'm thinking that there is a gradient here. If you are against any mechanical suggestions for how monsters act, then, yah, you won't like that they tried it. But you might not be carrying such a hard line. You might be more willing to have some more mechanically defined guidelines for some creatures that the players can then use to strategize. Not me, but it doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea. Therefore, I think it's fine that they played around with it and it doesn't worry me. I suspect if they told me that they had experimented with a mechanic which was just like WoW I'd be more concerned. And maybe some others in the 'they shouldn't have tried it' camp will be less concerned when they hear that WotC didn't try a direct port.

Anyway, not really interested in a lengthy argument. Just trying to point out that the debate might not be framed quite as clearly for everyone else as it is for you.

AD


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And no one that I know of is suggesting that they would rather that the game have some formal pervasive aggro mechanic as part of core game play, and everyone is pretty much against them doing it.  It's just some of the people that are against such a game system would rather they didn't even bother testing one, and some people think that they should have.



No, the argument is not "it's good that they tested an aggro mechanic", it's "it's good that they're testing new ideas, regardless of where the idea comes from". Aggro is a new idea, and therefore testing it is fine. Just like other new ideas.

It's good that they are not rejecting ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game. This idea failed, but other may succeed.

And again, how can you be against a game system of which you have no details? That's pure speculation. D&D already has mechanics that affect how other creatures behave, so it can't be inherently wrong, can it?


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 12, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> Anyone noticed that Rodney Thompson has addressed this discussion?
> 
> http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=21806&pagemode=2&blogid=2100
> 
> ...




He makes some good points.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Word of Warcraft is a PnP game? I was under the impression it's a video game.




Yep, it is both...

World of Warcraft RPG 

http://www.warcraftrpg.com/home.html

Also, IIRC, Warcraft was one of the designers homebrew D&D settings.  They approached TSR and tried to sell them on the idea, TSR didn't go for it, so that is how they came up with Warcraft in the first place (the first Warcraft, the RTS, not the MMO).  So really, WoW technically is (or at least WAS) D&D.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You presume wrong.
> 
> By 'everyone' I mean, 'Everyone involved in this conversation.'



You should re-read the thread, then.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Have we made 10 pages yet?   As much fun as this has been, it's probably time to move on to the next highly controversial issue.

Hmmm.... Anyone have an idea what that next highly controversial issue might be? I'm betting a nickle it's going to be dice color.

(Thanks to this thread, "aggro" is now one of my top-17 hated words, right after "asparagus.")

Think peaceful thoughts.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> So, I'm thinking that there is a gradient here. If you are against any mechanical *suggestions* for how monsters act, then, yah, you won't like that they tried it. But you might not be carrying such a hard line. You might be more willing to have some more mechanically defined *guidelines* for some creatures that the players can then use to strategize. Not me, but it doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea. Therefore, I think it's fine that they played around with it and it doesn't worry me. I suspect if they told me that they had experimented with a mechanic which was just like WoW I'd be more concerned. And maybe some others in the 'they shouldn't have tried it' camp will be less concerned when they hear that WotC didn't try a direct port.
> 
> Anyway, not really interested in a lengthy argument. Just trying to point out that the debate might not be framed quite as clearly for everyone else as it is for you. (emphasis added)




If there is any misframing of the debate going on, it isn't necessarily by people on 'my' side of the debate.  If you read Gloombunny, Wolfspider, and myself I think it is pretty clear that we aren't concerned with keeping the game free of 'WoW' influences.  The dumb idea just happens to be associated with video games.  It's a dumb idea all the same, no less or more so because of its source.

IMO, the charges that 'my' side of the debate is trying to poison the well by bring up MMORPGs or that we are trying to close debate on the subject by bring up MMORGPs, are really themselves attempts to poison the well and close debate.  It's like bringing up Godwin's Law in an attempt to win the debate.

No one is suggesting that they should have rejected the idea out of hand because it comes from a computer game.

You'll notice that I put some of the words of your quote in bold.  Just so we are clear, guidelines and suggestions are not rules.  Guidelines and suggestions by there very nature are flexible and subject to interpretation, DM judgement, and circumstance.   (One obvious difference between suggestions and rules, is that you can't program suggestions into a computer.  A computer needs rules.  It can't interpret and use its judgement.)  There are indications that they are keeping guidelines and suggestions about how to run a monster in the game, and there are and will be very few complaints about that.  

The implication of them dropping an aggro system is that at one time they had a mechanical resolution for pervasively determining which monster attacked which character, and that system could be deterministically manipulated as part of core game play.  We have no idea what the details of that, and I for one never assumed that the system had been ported directly from anything else computer game or otherwise.  However, I think I never cared what the details were.  It's a bad idea because figuring out that sort of thing is what DMs are for, and they'll do it far better than any mechanical system.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You should re-read the thread, then.




FYI, I just did.

If you can point me to the post where the poster says that he wishes that they didn't drop the rules that they tested from the game, I'd appreciate it.  I didn't see anyone saying, "I'm glad they tried it, but I wish they didn't drop it from the game because it sounds like a really good idea."


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Have we made 10 pages yet?   As much fun as this has been, it's probably time to move on to the next highly controversial issue.
> 
> Hmmm.... Anyone have an idea what that next highly controversial issue might be? I'm betting a nickle it's going to be dice color.
> 
> ...




Are you suggesting that maybe we should all just take a deep breath, pitch camp and heal up for the next combat scene? Lovely idea! You, sir, are a jeeeeeenyus!

Clerical healing for everyone!


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, the argument is not "it's good that they tested an aggro mechanic", it's "it's good that they're testing new ideas, regardless of where the idea comes from".




1) I don't see anyone here saying 'It's not good that they test new ideas', or even 'It's not good that they test ideas that come from video games'.   Nobody is arguing with that.  Rather it is indeed that we are arguing, 'It's not good that they tested an aggro mechanic.'  

2) It is a good idea to test new ideas, but merely being a new idea doesn't mean it is an idea worth testing.  Many new ideas are bad ideas, and you shouldn't waste time testing obviously bad ideas.

3) Aggro is not in fact a new idea.  It is a new idea in D&D.  Merely because it is a new idea doesn't make it worth testing.  'New' doesn't mean good.  Some new ideas should be tested, and others shouldn't.  Some new ideas have problems that aren't immediately obvious.  Others, like the idea in question, are obviously bad because they are designing fun out of the game and being rigid and inflexible for no good reason.  



> "It's good that they are not rejecting ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game. This idea failed, but other may succeed."




No one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game.  However, ideas that are obviously intended to deal with problems and constraints unique to video games, and which don't apply in a pen and paper 'platform', and which are obviously counter to a good design philosophy should be rejected out of hand as a needless waste of effort (at best).



> And again, how can you be against a game system of which you have no details?




How can you be for a game system which the designer rejected as bad?  The better question is, "Why didn't the designer foresee just how unfun this would be ahead of time?"



> That's pure speculation. D&D already has mechanics that affect how other creatures behave, so it can't be inherently wrong, can it?




D&D has no mechanics which from round to round determine where NPCs should move or how they should act.  Spells like 'Fear' and 'Charm Person' and class features like 'Taunt' and 'Turn Undead' are relatively rare exceptions to the normal freedom allowed to players and DMs to run thier characters how they deem best.   You probably could find some people who object to even these as inherently wrong, but that's not what is being discussed right now.  The point is that extending the interference of the rules in to participant freedom of choice and making play more mechanistic is a bad idea at the level of overall design philosophy, irrespective of the particular implementation.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 12, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that maybe we should all just take a deep breath, pitch camp and heal up for the next combat scene? Lovely idea! You, sir, are a jeeeeeenyus!
> 
> Clerical healing for everyone!




You know talking (or quoting) yourself is the first sign of insanity, right?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 12, 2007)

Damn!  Mearls Why Are You Dropping The Aggro Rules!!!!!!!!!!

Nooooooooooooo!


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Nov 12, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So true.



Heheh, agreement entirely accepted in the spirit it was offered... 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is reassuring, you come down on one side of the debate.  If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is not reassuring, you come down on the other.  But basically everyone agrees that the unseen mechanics were bad, if only because the designers said so.  No one is speculating particularly over what those mechanics were.



I think that's a pretty good summation. I am extremely skeptical that any sort of threat-point aggro scheme would work well in D&D. Even if they did test something like that, however (which Rodney Thompson has debunked), it still wouldn't bother me.

However, I personlly don't _want_ them to do anything in particular in regards to 4E design. I'm a 'hopeful' agnostic on 4E, since I have a long-running 3.5 campaign in full swing, have no plans to run anything else anytime soon, and am happy with the current level of product support I already have.

If WotC is out looking under rocks in their effort to design 4E, some folks don't want certain rocks flipped because they represent personal sacred cows (demons and devils and bears, oh my!), or they fear undesired forms of gameplay (respawn times in the monster statblocks, lol!). There are also some folks with no dog in that hunt that have no problem tilling the whole mess over _en masse_, worms and all. 

Thorough and methodical makes me warm and fuzzy just on principle, and insulate me from appeals to fear. 

4E will rise or fall under it's own merits _when it eventually comes out_; the dead-ends and rabbit trails they followed to get there are only interesting to me in a very meta-design sort of curiosity. In the meantime, I will endevor not to confuse methods with results.


----------



## lkj (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If there is any misframing of the debate going on, it isn't necessarily by people on 'my' side of the debate.  If you read Gloombunny, Wolfspider, and myself I think it is pretty clear that we aren't concerned with keeping the game free of 'WoW' influences.  The dumb idea just happens to be associated with video games.  It's a dumb idea all the same, no less or more so because of its source.
> 
> IMO, the charges that 'my' side of the debate is trying to poison the well by bring up MMORPGs or that we are trying to close debate on the subject by bring up MMORGPs, are really themselves attempts to poison the well and close debate.  It's like bringing up Godwin's Law in an attempt to win the debate.
> 
> ...





Well, to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were poisoning the well. Or that one side was more right than another. Or that you were intentionally misframing the debate. I just get the feeling that the two sides might arguing different things (which is often the case in these sorts of debates).

At any rate, I guess that to summarize this discussion between you and me (and not everyone in the thread). You feel that aggro rules were obviously a bad idea and not worth testing. I don't agree. I think there might be versions of aggro rules that weren't obviously a bad idea. I say that because I've made some 'on the fly' type decisions about how monsters would act that essentially boil down to aggro rules. So, to me, experimenting with codifying that in the belief it might make DM'ing easier isn't <i>obviously</i> a bad idea. Incidentally, I used 'guideline' and 'suggestion' because I pretty much take all those sorts of rules that way (Note: That's just me. I understand others feel more pressured to follow the letter of the rules, and that's understandable). 

But regardless-- I'm not trying to make you agree with me. It's fine that we have a different perspective on the matter. You think aggro rules were obviously not worth trying. That's not at all clear to me. It's not clear to me because I think that there might be implementations that would work out. It turns out the designers decided, after trying a method out, that it didn't work. And that's that.

It seems to me that the deeper part of this discussion is whether you feel that their trying out aggro rules indicates that the designers are incompetent and that that incompetence may result in a game you don't like. My answer to that: Nope. It doesn't indicate that at all. But that's just my opinion . . .

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 1) I don't see anyone here saying 'It's not good that they test new ideas', or even 'It's not good that they test ideas that come from video games'.   Nobody is arguing with that.  Rather it is indeed that we are arguing, 'It's not good that they tested an aggro mechanic.'



Well.., I've been wrong before, but Driddle has certainly convinced me that he takes *No Good Can Come To D&D From MMOGs!!!* as an axiom.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Many new ideas are bad ideas, and you shouldn't waste time testing obviously bad ideas.



At the risk of nitpicking, the word 'obvious' keeps popping up in this context. From a scientific point of view, 'obvious' has little value. The whole point of testing is to elminate the need or relevance of 'obvious'.

I don't care if they tested pop-o-matic based movement; as long as their testing methods are up to scratch, there are no worries. Second-guessing WotC time management seems to me a bit beyond the envelope of meaningful speculation. IMO, YMMV, ack, thbbbt, etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you can point me to the post where the poster says that he wishes that they didn't drop the rules that they tested from the game, I'd appreciate it.  I didn't see anyone saying, "I'm glad they tried it, but I wish they didn't drop it from the game because it sounds like a really good idea."



 

So anyone who says "it's good that they tested it" _and says nothing about the rules themselves_ are counted as someone happy that the rules were dropped? Because that's a good number of folks.


----------



## HeinorNY (Nov 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> "I'm glad they tried it and then didn't do it."
> 
> vs.
> 
> "I wish they didn't try it at all."



Anyone, plz, tell me: Is this huge thread about this? Because if it is, I'll skip it. Thanks.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 12, 2007)

Silent Cartographer said:
			
		

> Well.., I've been wrong before, but Driddle has certainly convinced me that he takes *No Good Can Come To D&D From MMOGs!!!* as an axiom.




Do not invoke my name lightly, mortal.


----------



## Henrix (Nov 12, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Anyone, plz, tell me: Is this huge thread about this? Because if it is, I'll skip it. Thanks.



Yep, that's basically it. Don't bother with it.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 13, 2007)

Henrix said:
			
		

> Yep, that's basically it. Don't bother with it.




No. NOW it's about love, respect and understanding.

We're _healing._


----------



## Henry (Nov 13, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Do not invoke my name lightly, mortal.




You mean like, _"Driddle, Driddle, fo-fiddle, piddle-diddle mo-middle DRIDDLE?"_ 'cause, yeah, that would suck.

Me, I'm happy without 'em. Didn't like morale, and don't like a hard and fast system similar to it. But that they tried it and found it lacking? Doesn't bother me. It would have bothered me had they kept it, because of my desire to make DM'ing easier, not more work.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> How can you be for a game system which the designer rejected as bad?  The better question is, "Why didn't the designer foresee just how unfun this would be ahead of time?"



I'm not for aggro. I'm for _testing_ new ideas, not rejecting them without testing them.

The answer to your question, I guess, is "Because the designers are not psychic." It is easy to arm-chair the designers' actions, but without being involved we have no idea how the whole aggro thing played out.

I still assert that the designers' willingness to test new ideas, even if some people consider them to be "obviously" bad, is a good thing. Provided, of course, that they reject ideas that do turn out to be bad, which appears to be the case.

I just cannot see how testing new ideas can be troubling. You may think it's "obvious" that their unknown aggro mechanics were a bad idea, but again I suggest that's easy to say on a message board, not so easy if you make your living designing and developing game mechanics.

But perhaps you're not the one to really be arguing with. It's really Driddle, with comments like:



			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.



Which implies that any idea inspired by a MMO is necessarily bad.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 13, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> You mean like, _"Driddle, Driddle, fo-fiddle, piddle-diddle mo-middle DRIDDLE?"_ 'cause, yeah, that would suck.




It's a good thing you made your save after screwing up that invocation spell, otherwise _-ooooohhh-_ the suffering you would have endured....


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 13, 2007)

Reasons why I'm glad that they at least thought to look at aggro.

1. The D&D game has NEVER done the bodyguard/defender role well. 

I believe that such a role is "classic" to fantasy. I mean, what the hell was the whole of the point of the fellowship if not a large number of defenders protecting a weaker person. In no time do we see the enemy simply ignoring the defenders and taking out the weaker members (hobbits). They have to deal with Aragorn et al first. Either by getting them out of position or by killing them first.

In 1e/2e, there is nothing that would force an enemy to say "ok, I must deal with Defender A before I get to the back row". 3.x remedied this slightly by the use of the AoO but even there, with the weird aspect of initative and the fact that a monster can "soak" hits as you increase in level, there was no reason for the monster NOT to attack the hobbits first.

However, given some people's dislike of both minis and AoO, WOTC realized that they need a better mechanic. Thus they looked around and saw the Aggro system in WoW,


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 13, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> It's a good thing you made your save after screwing up that invocation spell, otherwise _-ooooohhh-_ the suffering you would have endured....




psst, first rule of the message board: don't threaten the mods.


----------



## amethal (Nov 13, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Anyone, plz, tell me: Is this huge thread about this? Because if it is, I'll skip it. Thanks.



There is also a bit of a side story, in that some people think other people's opinions are coloured by their views on MMORPGs.

And we did have a mod intervention at one point, if you like "drama".

I'd skip it if I were you


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 13, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> people's opinions are coloured by their views on MMORPGs.



Knowledge painstaikingly gained by empiric observation.


----------



## Psion (Nov 13, 2007)

Well, just for the record/by way of comparison, as I have stated in times past on these boards, Silicon Sorcery was one of my favorite articles in Dragon, simply because pulling bits from diverse computer games forced the author to think "out of the box" a bit. So lets not go off and say that every 4e skeptic resents any MMORPG influence.

That said, I do believe it is possible to make a game _too_ close to MMORPGs, and there is good reason to be hesitant on this score.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 13, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, just for the record/by way of comparison, as I have stated in times past on these boards, Silicon Sorcery was one of my favorite articles in Dragon, simply because pulling bits from diverse computer games forced the author to think "out of the box" a bit. So lets not go off and say that every 4e skeptic resents any MMORPG influence.




I thought we already decided that we didn't want reasonable in our discussions any more? Black & White is all we need! 



> That said, I do believe it is possible to make a game _too_ close to MMORPGs, and there is good reason to be hesitant on this score.



I agree. I think the most dangerous thing is having if "feel" like a computer game: static plot that lacks alternative or imaginative routes to success (or failure  ), monsters respawning, random, unsuitable treasure on a monster, repetitiveness of actions. Not all computer games have these aspects, and it's not like D&D (or other RPGs) always manage to avoid it, but the individual points are not important. (And it's also notable that these points only exist in computer games because the technology isn't good enough to do all the stuff pen & paper gives you to avoid it. It's not like these games want or have to be that way.)


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Black & White is all we need!



Blue!


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Nov 13, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> 1. The D&D game has NEVER done the bodyguard/defender role well.




I think that the reason the role has never been done very well in D&D is because the players want to be heroes.  Not the heroes henchman.  If I decide to roll up a fighter, it is because I want to kill things with an axe.  It is not because I want to protect the Wizard.

Having said that, I think that a pure bodyguard role does make sense from the DM's side of the table, when you really are looking for ways to keep your primary villains alive.  Right now, the only ways to do that are the Shield Other spell (I might have the name wrong, but I am talking about the spell where half the damage to the target of the spell goes to the caster), and by throwing so many mooks at the player that it takes them a while to cut a path to the target they want to kill.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 13, 2007)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> I think that the reason the role has never been done very well in D&D is because the players want to be heroes.  Not the heroes henchman.  If I decide to roll up a fighter, it is because I want to kill things with an axe.  It is not because I want to protect the Wizard.



It's not that a fighter should _only_ be protecting the wizard; the problem is that under the D&D rules, he hasn't really been able to protect the wizard when it would have been necessary.


----------



## grimslade (Nov 13, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> It's a good thing you made your save after screwing up that invocation spell, otherwise _-ooooohhh-_ the suffering you would have endured....




Right. I always mess that up. It's say his name 3 times while spinning Counter-clockwise not clockwise. Got it. Now all I need is more goats blood.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 13, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Right. I always mess that up. It's say his name 3 times while spinning Counter-clockwise not clockwise. Got it. Now all I need is more goats blood.




It's at this point that I think we can be reasonably sure this thread has pushed up a daisy.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 14, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That said, I do believe it is possible to make a game _too_ close to MMORPGs, and there is good reason to be hesitant on this score.



I definitely agree that D&D could be made too much like a MMORPG. But I'm not sure there's reason to be hesitant; the fact that the designers have already rejected something resembling an "aggro" system indicates they are not going for MMORPG-y stuff all over the place. If anything, this news should be comforting to anyone not wanting D&D to be too MMORPG-y, not worrisome.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 14, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game.






			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Many new ideas are bad ideas, and you shouldn't waste time testing obviously bad ideas.




....seems to contradict your assertion.

OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"

To which I would have to say "Obvious to whom?"


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"




I'd say riding a unicycle along the edge of a cliff is an obviously bad idea. Wile E. Cyotee did that in one episode of Loony Toons and died for about the 743rd time. But I don't think it's a bad idea because of that. I just think it's a bad idea.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ....seems to contradict your assertion.




I don't see how.  I don't fully agree with Driddle on both style and substance, but I don't see why I should accept your uncharitable characterization of what he's saying.



> OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"




I don't think it is either.  I believe Driddle comment is what it is on its face - a criticism of a development process which to Driddle is too uncritical of adopting facets of popular computer games into D&D.  I think if I had to paraphrase Driddle it wouldn't be, "All ideas from video games are bad ideas." but rather, "Just because it works for a video game, doesn't mean it should be treated like a good idea."  

As a programmer and player of both pen and paper and computer RPGs, I can sympathize with that.  So often computers do things the way they do because they are such a limited platform compared to the human imagination.  And alot of things that they do do well, like say basic arithmatic or book keeping, aren't necessarily applicable to PnP games because humans don't do that nearly as well or as speedily. 

I leave it to Driddle to decide who has gathered the better sense of his posts.



> To which I would have to say "Obvious to whom?"




Well, obvious to me, obviously.  And, obvious I would hope to any game designer that isn't so wrapped up in the design process that they've lost track of the reasons why they are doing the things that they are doing.  Mearls is a pretty good designer.  I'm not at all surprised that he rejected this sort of thing.  I am surprised, especially based on his prior comments about his own understanding of what made for a good design, that he tried this in the first place.  It should have been completely obvious that if you tried to impose this sort of constraint on DMs, one of the first things that they'd do was simply ignore the rules.  Much like the 'morale' system from earlier editions, DMs will tend to ignore the rule in favor of thier own judgement of what is fun and will resent players telling them what monsters do.  When you design into the rules a rule that is made to be broken, and which it seems likely most groups are going to ignore, it calls into question whether it should be a rule in the first place.

This is also an example of trying to compete with a computer game by playing your weakness against its strength, instead of your strength against its weakness.  One of the strengths of PnP is the richness of behavior and complexity that having a DM can bring to NPCs that computers just can't provide.  Monsters behaving mechanically is one of the weakness of computers, and one of the sources of tedium in those games in the long run.  By incorporating that weakness into a PnP game, you run the risk of having a situation where when 6 gamers get to gather, they'd rather have a LAN party (or get together online) than play a PnP because the PnP isn't offering much of anything that the cRPG isn't, and no one wants to be the DM because the job is reduced to drudgery.  It should be obvious that on the whole, making this a rule rather than a suggestion, decreases DM fun rather than increases it.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 14, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Reasons why I'm glad that they at least thought to look at aggro.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1e/2e, there is nothing that would force an enemy to say "ok, I must deal with Defender A before I get to the back row".




Yes there was, he was called the Dungeon Master.  Sadly, WOTC is trying to remove his role from the game altogether.  By 5e, he'll be sitting in a bar somewhere, beside the gnome and ranger, drowning his sorrows.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 14, 2007)

> I don't see how. I don't fully agree with Driddle on both style and substance, but I don't see why I should accept your uncharitable characterization of what he's saying.




What characterization? What uncharitability? I said that his statement that MMO's "on the brain" does some sort of "damage" seems to contradict your assertion that "no one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game." Driddle appears to be suggesting EXACTLY that, saying that this idea should be rejected out-of-hand specifically because thinking about MMO mechanics does some sort of mental damage, or is evidence of some sort of mental defect. I don't know how else you could interpret his statement.

You're going to have to do more than accuse me of somehow spinning his statement to show me that this interpretation, which seems quite evident, is incorrect.



> a criticism of a development process which to Driddle is too uncritical of adopting facets of popular computer games into D&D.




How is that substantially different from rejecting ideas out-of-hand because of their inspiration?



> I leave it to Driddle to decide who has gathered the better sense of his posts.




You missed the quote from yourself in there, too. The idea that some ideas are "obviously bad ideas" is a fallacy.



> Well, obvious to me, obviously. And, obvious I would hope to any game designer that isn't so wrapped up in the design process that they've lost track of the reasons why they are doing the things that they are doing.




Fallacy. Your own experience is not universal, and your own opinion is not the most logical opinion for everyone to hold (though it probably is the most logical for YOU to hold). It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that your views are or should be universally held by those of sufficient logical ability.



> It should have been completely obvious that if you tried to impose this sort of constraint on DMs, one of the first things that they'd do was simply ignore the rules.




DMs vary wildly in their implementation of the D&D rules. This is a recognized advantage of the D&D rules: their ability to be transformed easily. For anyone to assume anything about even most DM's (let alone all DM's) is shaky ground at best, ESPECIALLY if it hasn't been tested and shown to be true across several different DMs. It's pure hubris to assume you know what most DM's will do without first seeing if several different DM's do the same thing.



> This is also an example of trying to compete with a computer game by playing your weakness against its strength, instead of your strength against its weakness.




This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.



The following position makes sense to me: "Hey, that game-mechanics idea worked fantastically well for that computer RPG.  Let's see if we can generate success by integrating it into the rules of this tabletop RPG.  If we can, great!  If not, oh well, it must not translate well."

The following exchange also makes sense to me:
A: But our game probably won't interface well with that idea because it relies on different base assumptions about the mechanics of play than our game does.
B: Sure, but if we try it out and it somehow works, we gain something.  And even if it doesn't work, we'll have a much better idea of why it doesn't work, which will inform our decisions regarding design in other places.  It's a win/win situation.

So I can see why running stolen ideas through the design machine is probably a good practise.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 14, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Yes there was, he was called the Dungeon Master.  Sadly, WOTC is trying to remove his role from the game altogether.  By 5e, he'll be sitting in a bar somewhere, beside the gnome and ranger, drowning his sorrows.




Do you have any proof of that or are you content to stick with hyperbole?


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What characterization? What uncharitability? I said that his statement that MMO's "on the brain" does some sort of "damage" seems to contradict your assertion that "no one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game." Driddle appears to be suggesting EXACTLY that, saying that this idea should be rejected out-of-hand specifically because thinking about MMO mechanics does some sort of mental damage, or is evidence of some sort of mental defect. I don't know how else you could interpret his statement.




"on the brain" is a English phrase which means to obsess over something unhealtily.  Obsessing carries a negative conotation (and hense is 'poisoning the well') but, assuming that we accept his assessment that the design team is obsessed with MMORPGs, then it follows immediately that there has been some sort of damage to the design process.

I've probably done as much as anyone to popularize the complaint of attacking another person as mentally defective for holding a given opinion, but I don't see 'the damage has been done' as being a complaint that the designer was brain damaged.   My interpretation was 'the damage has been done to game'.  It's only after his initial post where people accuse him of talking about viruses and such that that comes up, and then he accepts it with a 'smile' and back in your face attitude that I've come to expect from Driddle.  But let's let him speak for himself, 'k? 



> You're going to have to do more than accuse me of somehow spinning his statement to show me that this interpretation, which seems quite evident, is incorrect.




I don't think that it is evident at all, but if you do, then by the very definition of 'evident' there probably isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.



> How is that substantially different from rejecting ideas out-of-hand because of their inspiration?




The difference between saying 'Something is bad because it came from video games' and 'Something isn't good because it came from video games'.   If you can't see how that isn't a substantially different and much weaker claim, I'm not going to try to lecture you in logic.



> You missed the quote from yourself in there, too. The idea that some ideas are "obviously bad ideas" is a fallacy.




I disagree.  And leaving aside a long argument about human judgement tuitive or intuitive, just on the grounds of consistancy I'd love to hear what your axiom that rejects 'obvious' is, but allows you to make claims about things seeming evident and distinguish whether things are or are not substantially different.  



> Fallacy. Your own experience is not universal, and your own opinion is not the most logical opinion for everyone to hold (though it probably is the most logical for YOU to hold).




My own opinion is not necessarily the most logical opinion for everyone to hold.  It could be.  And in this case I think it is.  Again, unless you are arguing that the discarded mechanic was a good one, I don't see how you think you can get much milage out of this.  'It's a bad idea, but there is no way you could have foreknown that it was a bad idea'?  Really?  You don't think there are ways to foreknow anything?



> It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that your views are or should be universally held by those of sufficient logical ability.




It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that I'm always right.  It is not unreasonable or unfair to assume that my views should be held by other people, nor is it unreasonable for me to assume that my opinion is reasonable.  Everyone does assume that there views should be held by other people, or if they don't, then they don't argue about it.  So lets just dispense with that distraction from the topic now.



> This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.




I don't think I need to believe that it is a purely adversarial relationship to believe as I do.  For all your complaints about it, explicit and implicit, you seem hung up on 'A vs. B' alot more than I am.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 14, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Do you have any proof of that or are you content to stick with hyperbole?




I'm content with his hyperbole.  I thought it funny.  Do you have any reason to suspect that he didn't know it was hyperbole?


----------

