From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Alt Boy!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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

I could well have my chronology messed up.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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]

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]

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]

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!!