From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Simia Saturnalia]

There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually used in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.

Maybe less crying and self-superior "I can't believe they'd even consider something from *sniff* video games" would be in order?

I'd been thinking about this thread before, and I bet if he'd called it an "aggression mechanic" in the article and talked about its uses, rather than its origins, nobody would have soiled themselves quite as hard. But what fun would that be?

 

[Aloïsius]

I think it's very sad that you and so many other D&D gamers seem to think that computer games rot your brains, wither your spine, grow hair on your palms and make you blind.

Hey, you know what ? Everybody needs to think that they are better than other. I know many roleplayers who despise D&D ("it's a game, but a roleplaying one ?") and were crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when they learned that D20 CoC, D20 Starwars, D20 L5R or *gasp* D20 world of darkness were to be published ("we don't need no stinking dungeon crawling munchkins !").
This is exactly the same reaction.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Hey, you know what ? Everybody needs to think that they are better than other. I know many roleplayers who despise D&D ("it's a game, but a roleplaying one ?") and were crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when they learned that D20 CoC, D20 Starwars, D20 L5R or *gasp* D20 world of darkness were to be published ("we don't need no stinking dungeon crawling munchkins !").
This is exactly the same reaction.

Which is absurd, because d20 CoC was actually quite good, and had some brilliant essays on running the genre in it. d20 L5R, however...no. Sorry, L5R doesn't work if Hida make better duelists because they've got enough hit points to eat a Crane first strike and keep on hacking.

 

[WhatGravitas]

There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually used in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.

On the second page I mentioned it already:

Eh, aggro is for me morale in reverse. I'm happy to see morale gone, I'm happy to see no aggro, though I liked that they gave it a try.

AND NOBODY LISTENED TO ME? LISTEN TO ME PEOPLE!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Hussar]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind seeing a morale system brought back in?

I actually like the idea of a series of "trip" events that cause a morale check and make enemies run away.

 

[Zweischneid]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind seeing a morale system brought back in?

I actually like the idea of a series of "trip" events that cause a morale check and make enemies run away.

Not really. Sounds like adding yet another mini-system, which in turn would be overtly complex to account for all the different types of beasts you could encounter in D&D (and again differentiated for conditions, etc.., is the Owlbear hungry? Rabid? Protecting its young? etc.., etc..) for something thats essentially the point of having a GM.

Aggro systems in Computer Games try to simulate the intelligence behind creatures in absence of the real thing, i.e. they are a second-best solution.

Now, if you have a GM, why simulate? You're already enjoying the equivalent of a MMOG where every beast and NPC is run by a real guy somewhere instead of an abstract routine.

 

[Hussar]

Not really. Sounds like adding yet another mini-system, which in turn would be overtly complex to account for all the different types of beasts you could encounter in D&D (and again differentiated for conditions, etc.., is the Owlbear hungry? Rabid? Protecting its young? etc.., etc..) for something thats essentially the point of having a GM.

Aggro systems in Computer Games try to simulate the intelligence behind creatures in absence of the real thing, i.e. they are a second-best solution.

Now, if you have a GM, why simulate? You're already enjoying the equivalent of a MMOG where every beast and NPC is run by a real guy somewhere instead of an abstract routine.

The only problem is, lacking a morale mechanic, every DM I've played with has every creature fight to the death. And, probably, I'm guilty of the same.

But, you're probably right about it being difficult to implement without it becoming cumbersome. :\

 

[Wolfspider]

There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually used in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.

Maybe less crying and self-superior "I can't believe they'd even consider something from *sniff* video games" would be in order?

Hey, I haven't used morale in any edition of D&D. I don't like it for much the same reason as I don't like the proposed "aggro" rules. Loss of DM control over the situation.

I'd been thinking about this thread before, and I bet if he'd called it an "aggression mechanic" in the article and talked about its uses, rather than its origins, nobody would have soiled themselves quite as hard. But what fun would that be?

You're quite right. Words and expressions have connotations that color how people react to them. Imagine that!

Seriously, "aggression mechanic" would have been a better term to use because D&D is a role-playing game, not a computer game. Using a term that is used exclusively (up to this point, anyway) in computer games to refer to a table-top mechanic can only lead to confusion.

As another bad analogy, imagine if the D&D 4.0 designers desided to refer to a character utilizing a "total defense" maneuver as "castling." I'm sure that some people who play chess might maybe sorta understand why this is done, but other wouldn't understand the term, and people who hate chess would claim that D&D was becoming too much of a boardgame.

It's impossible to remove all the connotations from words, but it is important to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There's not one complaint made here about the idea of an 'aggro' mechanic that couldn't be just as easily applied to morale, a rule they actually used in the much-beloved 1e/2e systems. Yet somehow we all managed to get through that without it becoming a video game.

Mainly by ignoring it.

Morale didn't have much in common in aggro. It only dictated one aspect of tactics, and it hardly impinged on the rules to remove it. (Off-hand, I don't recall any core spells that forced an automatic morale check in the spell's description.)

I think aggro is bad for DnD because DMs can easily out-think a computer. I don't think CRPG or MMO mechanics are necessarily a bad thing, but I think aggro is a bad thing.

Suppose we have a class called 'Tank'. The 'Tank' class draws an AoO on any character it threatens if that character attacks any other character. In addition, it gains bonus damage (equivalent to the rogues sneak attack, so say +10d6 for a 20th level tank) on subsequent rounds if the monster it attacked in the prior round has not attempted to attack it before the Tank's next action.

This is far superior to aggro. The NPCs can still think or otherwise react in a way they feel is appropriate.

 

[Psion]

As another bad analogy, imagine if the D&D 4.0 designers desided to refer to a character utilizing a "total defense" maneuver as "castling." I'm sure that some people who play chess might maybe sorta understand why this is done, but other wouldn't understand the term, and people who hate chess would claim that D&D was becoming too much of a boardgame.

It's impossible to remove all the connotations from words, but it is important to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.

This is true. You'd think that wizards would realize that not all of their prospective audience are WoW players. Wizards would probably be better off having their designers not communicate in language that is only understood by the MMORPG subset.

In fact, in the long term, it could prove a very negative move if they keep it up. Aside from turning off non-WoW players, they sort of stand the potential to set up a reverse "skaff effect". That is to say, one of the chief intents of the OGL was to keep people comfortable with D20 so they would move back to D&D after any gaming hiatus. Now they are keeping players comfortable with MMORPG terminology, ensuring that their players lapse back to MMORPGS after short hiatuses into D&D.