From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Wolfspider]

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?

Oh, I want to hear about the design process as well. It will help me decide what I want to do with 4.0 when it comes out...if I'm going to play the game as is or cannibalize parts for my 3.5 game or whatever. It's very helpful to hear what the designers have to say. I certainly don't want that to go away!

But I still reserve the right to be displeased about something, although I will try to keep an open mind. That's why I love hearing what you guys have to say. It's generally pretty helpful in filling in the things I might have missed in my own assessment of things.

As far as my criticisms convincing anyone in WotC to give up publishing insider articles because I think that aggro mechanics are a bad idea or whatever, I hope they're not that thin-skinned.

That being said, I think I'm going to have some leftover Dragon Tail Cut that I got when I went out with my girlfriend to Points of Light last night. I love eating there. Mmmm.

 

[Wolfspider]

Really? What should videogames be doing instead?

Using Skynet-level AI.

Then we we'll have much more pressing things to worry about than 4.0....

 

[Nifft]

Using Skynet-level AI.

Yes!

Then we we'll have much more pressing things to worry about than 4.0....

I for one welcome our new cyberdemon overlords.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wolfspider]

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.

It's a fallacy to argue that someone has to be an expert at doing something in order to criticize it.

If you think Windows Millenium edition sucks, should you just remain quiet because you aren't Bill Gates and/or you don't have a computer degree?

If you think a law is unfair, should you just suck it up and not utter a word in protest because you aren't a practicing lawyer?

If you think a movie sucks, should you just shut the heck up and watch it anyway just because you aren't a director or Roger Ebert?

Sure, I listen to what experts have to say. But I also reserve the right to my own opinion.

This kind of stuff just drives me nuts.

Try to relax. It's just a game.

 

[Wolfspider]

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!!

Nice.

By the way, your user picture has me completely hypnotized.

What is thy bidding, my master?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

It's a fallacy to argue that someone has to be an expert at doing something in order to criticize it.

Yes. But it's also pretty ridiculous when people complain and grind their teeth when they hear a rule or a rule system they might not like has even been considered, even though the designers said in the next breath that they didn't like the results either, and the rule isn't incorporated in the final design.

Or, basically, you don't have to be an expert to criticize someone, but if you're an amateur and they're the experts, it's reasonable to assume they know what they're doing, quite possibly better than you and give them the benefit of doubt.

Try to relax. It's just a game.

Game's fine; it's us gamers that are problematic.

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

But aggro is just attention of the monster towards your character, thus choosing to attack your character. What makes the monster attack your character is your threat towards that monster. If you deal a lot of damage to the monster, and the guy next you stands looking, the monster will attack you, so you will have the monster's aggro on you.
We don't need rules for aggro/threat mechanics in D&D because it always existed before, based on the DM's discrition and good sense. In WoW it works based on predictable scripts because.. welll... it's a computer game. In D&D the DM does all the work deciding which character the monsters will attack, and THAT is the aggro/threat mechanism, right in there.

If you are an archer and two enemies are charging you, an orc with a greataxe and a goblin with a stick. Which one will you attack first? That's the aggro/threat mechanism. It's in our judgement, but it exists.

We don't need rules for that because the rules could never be complete enough, there could be too many variables involved. If the characters enters a room with an orc inside, will the orc attack the fighter, the cleric or the wizard? How do you create a rule for that? What if the orc wants to run away? What if the orc knows that there is a trap in the room? A set of rules would never be good enough, it's just better to let real people to the job.

A taunt mechanism is totally different, but also exists in D&D. Your fighter could make a bluff check so the enemy believes he is weak and an easy target, thus somehow "convincing" the enemy to attack him, or the wizard could make an inimidate check so all his enemies get intimidated and chose another one to attack. We could have better rules to adjucate these situations a lot easier though.

Back to the aggro/threat rules, we COULD have some guidlines regarding some types of monsters. If the group faces some unintelligent beast, which one will it attack first? The largest character? The smallest? Will it run away? How does a creature with Int lower than 5 makes that kind of choice, or other choices like fighting to death, running away when "bloodied", etc. Do orcs fight to death? Or trolls? What about a dragon? We could really have better rules or just guidelines concearning monsters behaviour in combat.

 

[GSHamster]

Actually, it's relatively easy to make "smart" AI for an MMOs.

1. Identify healer.
2. Nuke healer into the ground.
3. Identify wizard.
4. Nuke wizard into the ground.

The issue is not that AI is not smart, it's that this style of gameplay is not fun (at least is not fun if you have differing levels of survivability). Thus we have the aggro mechanic which can be manipulated, which makes the game interesting.

Quite honestly, most of us don't play monsters in the most optimum manner either. There's not a lot of fun in focusing all of the dragon's attacks on the wizard, ignoring the other party members. But 9 times out of 10, that's probably the best tactic for the dragon. Instead we usually play the monsters in a less optimal, but more fun, manner, and that is something which is very hard to capture in a ruleset.

It's the same thing in most video games. It's often relatively trivial to make an AI character that cannot be beaten. Think of a bot that never missed in an FPS. It's hard to make an AI that is a challenge, but beatable.

 

[TwinBahamut]

And this isn't an MMORPG thing: Aggro mechanics are in place in every CRPG ever, they just vary in their approach over time.

Not really. In many videogame RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series, enemies essentially attack at random. In other games, like Fire Emblem, they always go for the enemy they will hurt the most, with the least risk to themselves from direct counterattacks. As such, you can't really say that Aggro rules (in which the idea is based on targetting the one doing the most damage to the monster) is universal.

Certainly, the most iconic element of Aggro rules, tanks using a "taunt" or other move with artificially high aggravation qualities in order to draw attention to themselves, is far from universal. More often, there are no characters so squishy that a tank is necessary, there are enough characters that you can form protection formations with a line of tanks, or tanks have abilities that let them actively interpose themselves between a monster and an ally the moment before an attack. The whole idea of a tank working by tricking the monster into willingly attacking the tough guy is certainly an aspect of MMORPGs, is very rare elsewhere, and is a very problematic system.

I am glad that the WotC guys are trying out new things and exploring potential systems to make playing a defender character work, but I am even more glad they ditched the idea of using aggro rules. Such rules are easily the worst solution I have yet seen to the team defense problem.

I would be much happier if the rules were such that the monster will always want to target the damage-dealers and healers, but simply can't, because every time he tries, the tank gets in his way and knocks him back.

 

[Silent Cartographer]

It's all about making a framework for interesting choices.

Contemporary MMOG aggro management schemes may be clunky, and they're certainly a poor simulation. As a simulation, they are admittedly pretty absurd; but that was never the intent of aggro schemes anyway. GSHamster nailed it; aggro is a kind of mini-game designed to give the player interesting choices. Should I feign now, how many nukes can I chain on this boss, is this the moment I should use my one-shot uber taunt? Whatever.

A lot of people find this experience unsatisfying for any number of perfectly good reasons. It works well enough, however, to keep a few million people entertained every day.

Now, I might feel like it's 'obvious' or somehow instinctive to think that this kind of push-style, phony aggro scheme is totally unsuited for a table top game. I may even think I know why. Does that mean that I cannot learn something from the testing that theory, even if the results turn out exactly as expected?

Is it impossible to learn anything at all from such a test?

If the failure of push-aggro in R&D's playtest lead them to some insight on creating a useful, pull-aggro mechanism, well then, bravo!

The "ignore me at your own opportunity cost"-style of aggro clearly adds interesting choices; if that in turn adds a new layer of class features and differentiation, then /w00t!