"Aggro"

[haakon1]

Should the DM be the only thing that determines what an enemy attacks?

Yes. Let players play the PC's, and DM's play the monster and NPC's.

Should players have abilities that make it more or less effective to engage them/their allies?

It depends on how it's done. My default answer would be "no", because I don't like Marking in 4e, at all. But it wouldn't be beyond the pale to have spell that does "attack me or it'll hurt".

Should the game as a whole codify mechanics further towards players generating threat?

It should codify that the DM's should use roleplaying to run the monsters and NPCs, and aggro is a concept for video games, or mindless opponents, not intelligent monsters who can make their own decisions on how to fight.

 

[Kzach]

You know, rather than going all emo on us ('noooo one undeerrrrstannnddsss meeeee') you might consider that if multiple people have no clue what you mean, maybe what you wrote made no sense to anyone who wasn't you?

The simplest example, without meaning it to be the actual answer or a working system, would be to say that tank classes have AVERAGE defences whilst every other class has HIGH defences.

That wouldn't require active tracking because it's already incorporated as part of the basic system. Now I'm not saying it should work exactly like the above and again stress that it's just an example meant to illustrate my point, but it seems to me that it would be FAR easier to track and manage than an ACTIVE threat system like marking.

How much more obvious do I need to be?

The irony is that you're still talking about something different to what I'm talking about. You're talking about the example, and I'm saying the example is irrelevant since it was ONLY an example. And yet you're STILL saying, "But the example suxxorz!!!1!"

So I think it would be best if I just add you to my ignore list and be done with it.

 

[Kzach]

So it seems that its ok for the players to do the most tactically advantageous thing at all times but if the monsters get to do so then the game breaks?

No. I'm saying that for a system WITHOUT an aggro mechanic in place, the DM has to artificially stick to the tank or else the group will fail if the DM uses smart tactics for smart monsters.

It was always a problem in my AD&D games, whether DM'ing or playing, that the healers were brought low first, the wizards and rogues next and the warriors were left to get ganged up on. And this was BECAUSE DM's used smart tactics for smart monsters, as they should.

If smart enemies have to act dumb then the system has failed. Let dumb monsters act dumb, clever ones be more savvy, ect. How intelligent and tactically gifted a monster is plays a large part of its danger level or it should.

And that's exactly why you need an aggro mechanic. There needs to be a REASON for the smart enemies to target the tank instead of going for the healers and strikers.

 

[Mattachine]

As pointed out above, and on many other threads, the rules simply need to give clear, explicit advice. Not everything has to be a rule, but common situations should have guidelines.

 

[avin]

Aggro is fine when I play World of Warcraft.

Original CAGI was horrible. DDN should stay miles away from it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The only "aggro" I want in D&D is "Aggro the Axe", fighter extraordinaire.

There shouldn't be mechanics that interfere with monsters applying smart tactics. If the squishy wizard is the most dangerous guy on the D&D battlefield, he's going to draw fire, and should ... kind of like why aircraft carriers are called "bomb magnets."

 

[Guest 85555]

And fun!

I think what gary is talking about in this quote is not at all comparable to current discussionsof GNS. The kind of simulationist stuff gary had in mind would have been some of the heavy and deep war game simulationist approaches in use at the time. His idea of game school is also nothing like gamist as used today. But that said, does it matter what gary would have thought on the issue? Ad&d may have some game school elements, but 4E cranks that up 1000 times. For a lot of people stuff like marking produce the opposite of fun.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think that DDN should use a WoW style of aggro (more or less whoever deals the most damage gets attacked) for a number of reasons. The DM is better suited to deciding who his preferred targets are than some algorithm.

That said, I definitely think DDN should have mechanics that allow characters (fighters in particular) to incentivize enemies into attacking them (via a marking mechanic, or something similar). The reason is simple. The brave warrior who protects his charge is a classic trope of fantasy, whether you're talking about Aes Sedai and their Warders (Wheel of Time), Caramon and Raistlin, or the prototypical knight who bravely protects the royal family from harm.

It's something that, as a player, I felt was sorely lacking from D&D prior to the Knight (Player's HB 2, 3.5e). Granted, the Knight had issues on a mechanical level, but it was a step in the right direction. Marking (IMO) was another step in that direction, as it changed the Knight's Challenge (which forced an enemy to attack the Knight) into an incentive mechanic. You didn't have to attack the fighter, but depending on the circumstances it might be your smartest option.

Without a "marking" mechanic, assassins can just stroll past the fighter and assassinate the king he's protecting. The fighter's only chance of stopping them is to kill them before they can walk past him. Such mechanics (or in this case, a lack thereof) promote a rocket tag style of play where MOAR damage is always king, to which I say no thank you.

With a "marking" mechanic, damage is no longer the only thing that matters. It introduces a degree of subtlety to combat. It gives fighters control. Suddenly, the knight with a longsword and shield can have just as much of an influence upon the battlefield as the greataxe wielding barbarian. That's a good thing IMO.

Essentially, while the fighter shouldn't be guaranteed to be able to protect his charges, he should certainly have a fighting chance, assuming that's the style of fighter he wants to be.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No. I'm saying that for a system WITHOUT an aggro mechanic in place, the DM has to artificially stick to the tank or else the group will fail if the DM uses smart tactics for smart monsters.

It was always a problem in my AD&D games, whether DM'ing or playing, that the healers were brought low first, the wizards and rogues next and the warriors were left to get ganged up on. And this was BECAUSE DM's used smart tactics for smart monsters, as they should.

I never had to artificially stick to anything in AD&D and combats worked fine. Battles between groups of intelligent foes should be more lethal and dangerous than against stupid monsters. If the combat is being run with a predetermined ending ( PC Victory) then tactics or even dice for that matter are irrelevant.

The odds are that constantly engaging in battle with intelligent foes with resources equal to or better than your own will result in defeat a good part of the time unless you can find an extra edge. This is as it should be.

And that's exactly why you need an aggro mechanic. There needs to be a REASON for the smart enemies to target the tank instead of going for the healers and strikers.

Aggro mechanics are needed to make smart enemies stupid? No thanks.

 

[Trance-Zg]

I'm really not down with any of "aggro" and marking abilities.

Yes, the fighter needs "tank" feat or ability but it need to be that buffs up fighters options and not dumb down attackers one.

I.E.

feats;
Intercept, as immediate action you swap places with an ally in 5ft reach and take the attack directed at him.

Vanguard, mark a number of allies equal to your dex modifier(min 1), you can make melee attack of oportunity against an attacker of marked allies.