"Aggro"

[Sunseeker]

One of the things that video games have as a default assumption is that attacking causes "threat", the more damage you do, the more attacks you do, the more "threat" you generate. To continue the dominance of the "Holy Trinity", the "tanks" gained a taunt in order to artificially buff their threat when other classes pulled off of them. This idea was added in 4e with the addition of various Defender "marks", which basically made the target suck/hurt at doing anything other than attacking the Defender.

In D&Ds, aggro is handled by the DM, and it often has no rhyme or reason. Sometimes enemies will mindlessly attack the Fighter because he's closest, sometimes they'll always go after the wizard blasters or the healer clerics, sometimes they'll go after whoever makes the worst puns. Whatever the case, there is no mechanic determining who the enemies attack other than the will of god.

Sometimes this works out well, some enemies attack the fighter in their face while a few others run off and attack the back-row casters. Sometimes it doesn't work so well and enemies mindlessly swarm a single target. Certainly this also depends on enemy intelligence, zombies are more likely to swarm, human platoons are more likely to be tactical...but ALWAYS and ONLY if the DM decides to run them that way. The DM's will be done, some zombies will fight like they just got out of high-level tactics training, and some of the best fighting forces in the land won't move out of fire.

4e's addition of marking attempted to rectify this, though providing mechanics that punish enemies for not engaging the "tank". So even if the DM's will was that the zombies always go after the cleric, the fighter engaging those zombies would punish them above and beyond normal attacks for doing so.

When talking about possible drawbacks to spell casting, people often talk about damage interrupting a spell, but the problem is still that without a non-DM aggro mechanic, there's no guarantee that this drawback will ever occur. We'd have to take more power away from the DM, by giving all spells a way of generating "threat",

ie: if your spell is 5th level, casting it causes +5 threat, and at 10 threat, the nearest enemy will engage you over their current target. After being engaged, your threat drops to zero.

D&D has always leaned towards a loose "holy trinity" design, but without aggro mechanics, this design can never become very solid.

So what I'm curious for your opinions on, is how should "threat" be handled in the next edition of D&D? Should the DM be the only thing that determines what an enemy attacks? Should players have abilities that make it more or less effective to engage them/their allies? Should the game as a whole codify mechanics further towards players generating threat? In short, how should "aggro" be handled in D&D?

I see advantages and disadvantages to both sides. ALSO: please don't make this into a TTRPG vs VG thread. Aggro and threat are simply terms representing ideas. They're not limited to video games.

 

[billd91]

I don't think you can entirely avoid the discussion of table-top vs video game. An algorithmic approach is pretty much necessary in the video game. I don't think it's necessary in a table-top RPG run by a referee.

What I would prefer is advice given in the DMG and MM for this sort of thing. Something in the MM like "Orcs, being a warrior culture, prefer to fight other formidable warriors to bolster their own reputation and social standing" or "Githzerai are well versed in anti-spellcaster tactics and will often prefer to neutralize an enemy spellcaster at their first opportunity" or even "Leopards are opportunists. If they can snatch a small character and run to feed on their prey, they will often attempt to do so."

The reason I prefer this approach to something more algorithmic is because I believe the DM should be taking on the roles of the NPC he plays and not just playing a tactical game against his players. Guidelines and suggestions along those lines would support that but also allow the freedom for them to be ignore for special circumstances such as when the DM decides that one orc, Mauhur, happens to have a special knack for going after wizards and would rather take a sucker hit from any fighter he has to get past to do so.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I tend not to like Aggro mechanics.

As a GM I will decide who the monsters attack based on monster intelligence and ability to use tactics. The fighter is up front fighting a bunch of dumb monsters they might swarm him - if the opponents are tactical they try and get to the mage in the back.

If the players want to protect someone behind them, tactics should do it - creating bottlenecks, setting traps, using oil to light an area on fire. No need for mechanics to be used to say "Hey hit me!"

 

[Guest 85555]

I honestly think it is preferable to have the gm determine this based on what is happening. Taking the video game approach would just add complexity and probably not achieve very much (in fact I can see it backfiring terribly). I guess I always see video games as a pale imitation of what RPGs can achieve (in terms of the things rpgs are good at like having characters react organically to one another).

 

[slobster]

About the only time I could see aggro mechanics being useful is in a game without a GM. Otherwise, as others have correctly said, one of the most fundamental roles of the GM is adjudicating the actions of anything in the world that is not a PC.

 

[mcmillan]

I think having something like 4e's mark makes sense to include, basically representing a person fighting in a way that's more protective of allies.

But one thing that lets it work is that it's not a strict algorithim and the DM is free to go after someone else at times that seem to make sense (though triggering some kind of retribution). For that I think some kind of description about tactics like billd91 suggests is also valuable.

 

[Kzach]

I think the mark mechanic in 4e was very clunky and tiresome to track. I also don't think it made much sense given that the 'tank' is rarely the greatest threat in a combat. I think the efforts made to compensate for this were somewhat weak and very confused. I also think that the entire concept of the mechanic has done more to ruin immersion than any other mechanic has before, or since.

BUT...

...having said that, I also think there is a need for such a mechanic in D&D. I just don't feel the marking method is the best way to go about it. One way to go about this is threat reduction instead of threat increase. The mark mechanic worked by increasing the amount of threat that the tank represented. Another mechanic, however, could REDUCE the amount of threat that other classes created.

One of the limitations of D&D, in this regard, is AC. In D&D the tank is generally considered the one who should have the highest AC. And yet, within a threat management system, this is actually a downside. Instead of high AC, tanks should have damage mitigation and reduction abilities. This makes them a much more attractive target because the PERCEPTION of an enemy is that they're easier to hit. By the time they figure out that they're shrugging off the blows, well it's hopefully too late.

Strikers, healers and controllers (assuming those roles are all present in D&DN), should have some form of reducing the threat they represent. High AC is one method. Redirecting attacks? Making it look like the tank is causing the damage/effect? Concealing your ability or power? I'm not sure of the exact answer, but it seems like it would be a far easier mechanic for players and DM's to track and incorporate into combat sessions.

 

[Alan Shutko]

One difficulty is that any mechanic has to be lightweight enough to run at a table. 4e's mark system is lightweight enough (although it might be near the edge since I've seen a number of folks get confused as to who was marked by whom). Anything involving arithmetic on each monster (like the +5 threat proposal) is going to be hard to do without computer support.

That's why I've always been comfortable letting DM judgment figure out stuff like this. It absolutely means that you might experience different results with different DMs, but that may be the best you can do with human adjudicators.

 

[GreyICE]

I tend not to like Aggro mechanics.

As a GM I will decide who the monsters attack based on monster intelligence and ability to use tactics. The fighter is up front fighting a bunch of dumb monsters they might swarm him - if the opponents are tactical they try and get to the mage in the back.

If the players want to protect someone behind them, tactics should do it - creating bottlenecks, setting traps, using oil to light an area on fire. No need for mechanics to be used to say "Hey hit me!"

I agree. Combat challenge was a good example of that: -2 to hit anyone else, and if you were adjacent, and OA. Makes you WANT to hit the fighter, but hardly makes it mandatory.

The huge advantage of PnP games is that they have a DM. Let the DM do their thing, they're far smarter than a computer.

 

[Shadeydm]

Marking was a reasonable attempt at this. Nothing a coke bottle ring can't keep track of. It certainly made playing a defender more interesting. Maybe if the fighter is the new combat king he won't need it anymore idk.