Tabletop Aggro

[Camelot]

I don't like "aggro." It's not even a word. I understand why they use it in MMOs, because the AI is not advanced enough to make decisions. But the way it goes about it so superficial, that I'm glad it's left to video games and not tabletop games.

Many have said that 4e "marking" is a tabletop version of "aggro." I like how it is handled in 4e, as it doesn't force the monsters to make a certain decision, but adds in more factors to their decision making. It's not really "aggro" at all.

I'm trying to think of other possible "marking" or "aggro" mechanics that can be used in a hypothetical tabletop combat game. In it's simplest definition, the purpose of "aggro" is to get the enemies to attack one guy and not another. So, body blocking (i.e., having the fighter in front of the wizard) is, in my book, a form of "aggro." However, that leaves a wide gap from that to 4e "marking." What other mechanics could be used for tabletop "aggro?"

 

[Pyrex]

There's two seperate-but-similar concepts here.

Aggro and Aggro Management

MMO's generally use a (mostly) linear system for tracking aggro because it's really hard to code solid AI's with a reasonable threat model.

Marking is a form of Aggro Management, temporarily juggling Aggro values to change target priority order.

Since tabletop RPG's employ a human DM to handle threat priority, I don't think I've ever seen one that attempted to model Aggro from an impartial standpoint. It just isn't necessary.

So really, since I don't think you really want to go to the trouble of tracking Aggro, you're looking for additional options for Aggro Management.

While they're less common, there are powers other than mark that work as Aggro Management, but only if the DM remembers the players have them and is willing to use them to metagame a bit.

For example:
Feats, Powers & items like White Lotus Riposte and Vengeance is Mine or Barbed Baldric function as deterrents, effectively reducing that characters Aggro

Powers like Knightly Intercession work the other way, forcibly increasing the Aggro of a character.

Any of those offer models for tabletop Aggro Management

 

[Camelot]

Yes, your concept of "aggro management" seems to be what I'm getting at. I'm just looking for ideas for alternate methods (besides 4e marking) that a game can use to allow player characters to manipulate the GM's decisions of who to attack without forcing the GM to attack (or not attack) anyone.

I am unable to look up those links (not having a DDI subscription), but I do know what White Lotus Riposte does. It deals damage to a creature that hits you if you recently hit it. This is one good idea for "aggro management" and one that 4e utilizes in addition to its marking mechanic. In another game, a fighter might be able to attack anything adjacent to it that attacks something else (much like the 4e fighter, but without requiring a mark or something similar). What else could another game do without using the marking mechanic or needing to track "aggro?"

 

[Badwe]

aside from the methods used in 4e I can imagine a few:

-outright forced attack. not merely a penalty and potential reprisal, the tank/defender/big guy/whatever has an ability that leaves the monster no choice but to attack them. paladins in 4e have a few of these abilities, but they represent more of an interposing than a taunt.
-this is sort of like the mark's attack penalty, but a wielder of a shield might be able to grant whatever bonus it provides to nearby allies.
-something akin to reverse aggro or a variant on the free attack, any ally hit within a certain distance of the "defender" grants the defender bonus damage.
-not effective for rogues or 2-weapon rangers, but to protect the backline a defender/tank might be able to impose a penalty not just for stepping out of squares adjacent to them (assuming your game has opportunity attacks) but a stacking penalty of some sort for EVERY step taken away from the defender. limits might be required if your enemies frequently retreat and it is used as a means to chase down feeling opponents.
-if your game involves opponents who have one time use or limited use abilities, simply having the defender/tank walk far in front of the softer members of the party could invite the enemies to use their abilities on a target they're more likely to miss or who can absorb more punishment.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

outright forced attack. not merely a penalty and potential reprisal, the tank/defender/big guy/whatever has an ability that leaves the monster no choice but to attack them. paladins in 4e have a few of these abilities, but they represent more of an interposing than a taunt.

Knights in 3.x had this, and it was clumsy as all hell. Taunt mechanics in tabletop are pretty wack, IMO.

TBH, I think 4e handles this the best. Not just with the mark mechanic (which is fairly incidental much of the time) but with the other ways defenders do their job.

Fighters, for example, specialize in attacking people who move away from them or hit someone else, and they can in some cases actually stop a monster from moving completely with a well-placed hit. This, far more than the ability to give a -2 to attack anyone else, is what defines a fighter and gives them their stickiness, and it actually makes a ton of sense from a simulationist as well as gamist perspective (fighters are simply better than anyone else at hitting people who don't pay proper attention to them).

Wardens, on the other hand, are great at simply keeping an enemy from moving away, by slowing or dazing them, or by creating difficult terrain. They're like mini-zones of stickiness.

I like this approach in general much more than a knight-style taunts.

Some mechanics which I'd like to see which I haven't see much of yet...

"Bodyguard" mechanic. Rather than designate a monster to defend against, you designate an ally to defend, and have mechanics which help you put yourself in front of them or mitigate the damage they take.

A regeneration mechanic which encourages focus fire--like regeneration which kicks in if you aren't attack at least once each round.

 

[sev]

Yes, your concept of "aggro management" seems to be what I'm getting at. I'm just looking for ideas for alternate methods (besides 4e marking) that a game can use to allow player characters to manipulate the GM's decisions of who to attack without forcing the GM to attack (or not attack) anyone.

I am unable to look up those links (not having a DDI subscription), but I do know what White Lotus Riposte does. It deals damage to a creature that hits you if you recently hit it. This is one good idea for "aggro management" and one that 4e utilizes in addition to its marking mechanic. In another game, a fighter might be able to attack anything adjacent to it that attacks something else (much like the 4e fighter, but without requiring a mark or something similar). What else could another game do without using the marking mechanic or needing to track "aggro?"

Are you looking for specific examples of how this has been implemented in various games? Or general categories of how one might do this sort of thing, regardless of the system being played?

Some of the 4e classes have powers that damage or hamper monsters who try to move closer to or damage the characters. Warlock & Avenger come to mind most quickly -- warlock's Dire Radiance says "if the target moves closer on its next turn, it takes damage". Warlock's Hellish Rebuke damages the target if the warlock takes damage from anybody. And the Avenger seems to have things that trigger on opponents attacking. An ongoing area-of-effect around a character might do this, as well (I don't have specific examples of this for tabletop RPG PCs; I'm recalling the aura powers in the City of Heroes MMO as well as the ones in some 4e monsters). These generalize to "You hit me, you get hit back," "you come near me, you get hurt," "stop being near me, or else you get hurt," and "anybody hits me, you get hurt."

There's also encouraging foes to do other things instead of just attack: Knocking an enemy prone or entangling it means it wastes time getting up or getting out instead of just chasing after a retreating PC and attacking.

Finally, there's convincing the foe that somebody else is actually responsible for the damage. 4e models this with Misdirected Mark, but it could be done with a bluff skill in a mark-less system.

 

[Pyrex]

Here's a quick rundown on the stuff I listed:

Vengeance is Mine: Warlord encounter power, Immediate Reaction, you hit me, me and my friend each make basic attacks against you

Barbed Baldric: Anyone Grabbing you takes damage each round.

Knightly Intercession: Paladin power, Immediate Interrupt, when an ally is hit, pull the enemy adjacent to the Paladin and and the attack hits the Paladin instead. Paladin then makes an attack against the enemy.

But yeah, awesomeocalypse has generally the right idea; the Marked condition itself is pretty weak Aggro Management. Instead take a look at what each Defender class *does* when a Marked target annoys them; its where the real meat is.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"Bodyguard" mechanic. Rather than designate a monster to defend against, you designate an ally to defend, and have mechanics which help you put yourself in front of them or mitigate the damage they take.

This is the core concept I'm using for my own project. The monster's gonna do whatever it wants but the fighter can also protect whomever also.

 

[Asmor]

Here's an idea I've had to manage aggro in an original game.

Each player has a certain color of stone. Whenever they attack the monster, they add in some number of stones to a bag. More damage = more stones. The "tank" would have attacks which do relatively low damage but put in disproportionately more stones.

Then the monster draws stones from the bag to determine who it attacks.

 

[Camelot]

Are you looking for specific examples of how this has been implemented in various games? Or general categories of how one might do this sort of thing, regardless of the system being played?

Both. My reason is that I'm looking for ideas for a game I'm designing.

Here's a quick rundown on the stuff I listed:

Vengeance is Mine: Warlord encounter power, Immediate Reaction, you hit me, me and my friend each make basic attacks against you

Barbed Baldric: Anyone Grabbing you takes damage each round.

Knightly Intercession: Paladin power, Immediate Interrupt, when an ally is hit, pull the enemy adjacent to the Paladin and and the attack hits the Paladin instead. Paladin then makes an attack against the enemy.

But yeah, awesomeocalypse has generally the right idea; the Marked condition itself is pretty weak Aggro Management. Instead take a look at what each Defender class *does* when a Marked target annoys them; its where the real meat is.

Thanks, to you all!

I like the idea of just giving each "defender" their own mechanic to get back at enemies who ignore them. Fighters get to swipe at enemies who move past them, paladins get to absorb damage when their allies are attacked, etc. Different builds could have different mechanics.