From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[JeffB]

But the chain of evidence takes it back to GURPS, which was written by Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England, and TSR was founded by Gary, who co-created D&D.

Feats - Fallout - GURPS - Jackson - TSR - D&D

Six degrees! It all goes back to D&D.

Those are two different Steve Jacksons.


There is the American Steve Jackson from Metagaming (The Fantasy Trip, melee, wizard) who went on to do GURPS, and there is English Steve Jackson who went on to do the fighting fantasy gamebooks of the early 80s... Deathtrap Dungeon, etc. and the later "Sorcery" similar type books etc.

Rolemaster was using "talents" previous to GURPS. "Feats" were nothing new to the RPG world in Y2K, only to the D&D world.

 

[Mad Mac]

Japanese tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Fire Emblem, and Super Robot Taisen, don't use aggro rules at all. Enemy AI primarily operates on opportunism and dealing damage as quickly as possible to whoever is within reach

Actually, I'd say that games like Disgae love to dogpile squishy characters like mages and theives. You have to keep them well out of reach or they're pretty much insta-dead. Of course, this is actually feasible on a turn-based grid battle system.

For a traditonal JRPG, 3-4 characters lined up vs monsters, everyone can hit anyone else, and turn based, obviously tanking is not a factor. There is the intercept ability of the Knight class, but that's pretty much restricted to the FF series, you usually only get one guy who can do it, and it has a random chance of kicking in when HPs are critical. Not a major element of gameplay.

Instead, what you have is "mage" characters who are not that much more frail than warriors, and huge amounts of healing availible. Not to mention that ability to "res" fallen characters multiple times during a battle at a rather trivial cost. Protecting mages in these games is usually just a matter of keeping their HPs topped off so they don't get KO'd in a single round. This also doesn't apply to D&D very well unless you want to go with a system that completely de-emphasizes movement in favor of healing every single round.

D&D has never had a good system for "Tanking" either, unless you're always fighting in narrow corridors. I can see why the designers would be tempted to experiment with an aggro system, but what they eventually came up with--giving specific classes abilities that make them difficult to bypass, is a far more elegant solution.

 

[Hairfoot]

For those not familiar with MMOs, the term "aggro", etc...

Ah, useful. In my homeland, Agro is some sort of TV goblin.

 

[Driddle]

I think it's sad that they even had to consider incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics.

Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?

Makes me wonder what other MMO-think they've already embraced -- or hopefully, discarded.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?

Well, there's probably a few reasons.

Right at the top of the list, we have 3e's "just go around them" problem. In 3e, a "defender" usually couldn't properly defend because the monsters would just walk around them. Reach helped alleviate the problem, but, really, it was still quite simple for most threats to get to any member of the party they desired. No one was well defended. Defensive characters didn't get to do their jobs and soft characters died too quickly to do their jobs.

The easy way to make a monster stay with the defender is to give the defender some sort of "taunt" ability that forces the monster to pay attention to them.

Mearls pointed out the problem with that in D&D.

There are other ways to make the defender a more attractive target, and Mearls did a good job of pointing those out, too.

 

[hectorse]

I think it's sad that they even had to consider incorporating computer game "aggro" mechanics.

Was Merls & Co. testing the possibility because the latest generation of DMs is so brain-addled that they can't imagine what a combat opponent will do without a bunch of programmed rules? Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?

Makes me wonder what other MMO-think they've already embraced -- or hopefully, discarded.

how is the air up there in that hgih horse?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

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.

I think Wolf Spider has been very civil and reasonable in his replies. And don't forget, Alt Boy, this is a message forum. The whole *point* is to respond to each other's posts.

 

[Hairfoot]

Or because there are so many players now who expect their enemies to respond like they do online?

I'd be interested to know how common this is. Personally, I've had several arguments with players who believe monsters would attack PC X instead of PC Y, even though an intelligent opponent would target healers, magic-users, and backstabbers.

 

[SteveC]

I'm not sure that all this posturing is really accomplishing much of anything, especially given that we've been told that the rules are not going to make it into 4E.

At the same time, a number of folks have said that it's "obvious" that these rules are a bad idea for both D&D and MMORPGS. It isn't obvious to me in either case, so I ask: why is it obviously bad game design to include agro-like rules in either a MMORPG or D&D. I ask this because World of Warcraft seems to be fairly popular despite having such rules.

Just Wonderin',

--Steve

 

[TwinBahamut]

Actually, I'd say that games like Disgae love to dogpile squishy characters like mages and theives. You have to keep them well out of reach or they're pretty much insta-dead. Of course, this is actually feasible on a turn-based grid battle system.

Err, that is what I just said. The ones who get picked on are the vunerable ones, but not necessarily the dangerous ones. Thieves are not very threatening to monsters in Disgaea, at the very least.

For a traditonal JRPG, 3-4 characters lined up vs monsters, everyone can hit anyone else, and turn based, obviously tanking is not a factor. There is the intercept ability of the Knight class, but that's pretty much restricted to the FF series, you usually only get one guy who can do it, and it has a random chance of kicking in when HPs are critical. Not a major element of gameplay.

This isn't exactly true... In FFX, Auron's Guard and Sentinel abilities are active abilities which lets Auron protect all allies that turn reliably. In FFVI, Celes's Runic ability is an active defense which protects the aprty from magic. In FFIV, Cecil's Cover ability can be directed, and always works on critically wounded allies. As such, I do say that they are important tactical elements in those games, at least.

In addition, the Defender and Blocker abilities from the Wild ARMS series are similar, and are quite useful, so it isn't limited to the Final Fantasy series. Wild ARMs 4 and 5 even integrate those abilities with a limited tactical movement system.

Considering that I just mentioned Runic, and the Wild ARMs Magic Defender and Magic Blocker abilities, I wonder if this whole conversation could be turned towards the concept of defending against magical abilities not limited to physical positioning, in addition to just physical attacks and the like. Certainly, that was a great problem for older editions of D&D, where you have very few options for defending yourself against a mage attacking from a distance.

Instead, what you have is "mage" characters who are not that much more frail than warriors, and huge amounts of healing availible. Not to mention that ability to "res" fallen characters multiple times during a battle at a rather trivial cost. Protecting mages in these games is usually just a matter of keeping their HPs topped off so they don't get KO'd in a single round. This also doesn't apply to D&D very well unless you want to go with a system that completely de-emphasizes movement in favor of healing every single round.

One classic element of the Final Fnatasy games that you are forgetting is the implied party formation system of back and front rows. The Suikoden series elaborates greatly on this concept, even though more recent FF games have de-emphasized it. The characters on the front row have greater attack options for at the cost of greater risk of injury, while characters in back rows are protected, but have fewer options for attack. There isn't explicit tanking in this set-up, but still accomplishes the purpose of having tough characters protect weaker characters.

D&D has never had a good system for "Tanking" either, unless you're always fighting in narrow corridors. I can see why the designers would be tempted to experiment with an aggro system, but what they eventually came up with--giving specific classes abilities that make them difficult to bypass, is a far more elegant solution.

I agree for the most part. I just dislike the idea of "making defenders impossible to ignore", and prefer the concept of "making it physically impossible to bypass the defender".