From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[SSquirrel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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.