From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Maggan]

Wizards would probably be better off having their designers not communicate in language that is only understood by the MMORPG subset.

Apart from this one word, "aggro", what other MMORPG exclusive terms are used by WotC when communicating about 4e?

/M

 

[Hussar]

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.

Considering that the MMORPG playing population absolutely dwarfs RPG's, and that even people who don't play MMORPG's understand the term, I'm not really sure that using it is a bad idea. Yes, there are a couple of people in this thread who've asked, but, then, I believe that English was not their first language (and I truly appologise if I'm wrong there).

People understand the term. The problem is, far too many people have this huge hang up that D&D must be kept pure and pristine from any influence from video games, regardless of the merit of the idea.

Good grief. This much bandwidth on something they are NOT putting into the game.

 

[Zweischneid]

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.

Well, the main drawback is that MMOG tend to create rather artificial situations in which the limitations of a computer-aggro routine can apply. This however, is also their biggest drawback since they are thereby limited in what they can do.



Imagine the following:
The PCs are escorting the horse carriage of a fair lady through some dark forest where, unknown to them, a band of Hobgoblins and Goblins under the command of a ruthless Ogre-mage have laid a trap. With them is also a sneaky halfling who betrayed the route to the Ogre-mage to settle a score with the Players.

Already there, there's a million ways to go into the battle. Do the players scout ahead? Detect part or all of the ambush? Ride on their own, or in/on the carriage? Conceal their numbers or make a big show of their arms and armor?

Once the battle commences, there's different reactions to the groups. Hobgoblins fight well coordinated, disciplined and to the death unless ordered an equally coordinated retreat. Goblins are rather skittish, trying to score shiny things and avoid fights unless pressed. The Ogre-mage wants to kidnap fair lady and the sneaky halfling will try to get to the PCs (possibly a specific one), but avoid getting into a prolonged open fight with the heavy hitters of the party.

Now add to that battle the fair lady who might panik and head into the woods, the coachman who might or might not get involved in the fight, horses, animal companions, summoned creatures, etc... .

PCs or NPCs might climb trees, fly, hide, turn invisible, offer the Ogre-mage a truce or negotiate, start high-speed chases on the outside of a Coach who's horses got spooked, try capture the halfling, intentionally scare or distract Goblins to confuse the fight, etc...

There is no way in hell that any "aggro-system" short 10.000 pages could account for all the eventualities in that one fight alone, and as you see from the description it is only a "low-level" scenario.

Pen&Paper RPGs like D&D should play to their strenghts in relation to MMOGs, not trying to copy MMOG-mechanics in an inferior way.

 

[Wolfspider]

Good grief. This much bandwidth on something they are NOT putting into the game.

Thank you for your contribution to it.

Then again, according the front page news, there IS going to be a related approach in the MM:

A brief update in Rich Baker's blog: he's working on the Monster Manual, specifically writing what he calls "mission statements" for various monsters. That includes guidelines to "help the DM with target designation" for monsters (like attacking the nearest enemy, or attacking whomever damaged it the most). Baker is also working on morale notes for monsters -- which "are likely to run away when they're hurt, and which are fanatical or bloodthirsty enough to fight to the death."

I don't really have a problem with this approach, since the "mission statements" are specifically noted as being "guidelines" and "notes" and not hard rules that a rule-lawyering player could gripe about.

This kind of information would be helpful for a new DM in running combats, as long as it is made clear that the DM can and should deviate from these "mission statements" as logic and the story dictate.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, the main drawback is that MMOG tend to create rather artificial situations in which the limitations of a computer-aggro routine can apply. This however, is also their biggest drawback since they are thereby limited in what they can do.

Imagine the following:

[very cool scenario snipped]

There is no way in hell that any "aggro-system" short 10.000 pages could account for all the eventualities in that one fight alone, and as you see from the description it is only a "low-level" scenario.

Pen&Paper RPGs like D&D should play to their strenghts in relation to MMOGs, not trying to copy MMOG-mechanics in an inferior way.

Very well said.

Oh, and I love the idea behind this encounter. I have saved it in my idea file for later devious usage....

 

[Psion]

Apart from this one word, "aggro", what other MMORPG exclusive terms are used by WotC when communicating about 4e?

I don't remember saying it was a pervasive problem. I am saying it's a problem worth avoiding.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.

Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.

I think I can agree with you. Don't look at some stupid labels like "anime" or "video game", look at the inner workings, and tell me what is wrong with it and what is good with it.

It appears to me that this is what the D&D 4 team has been doing in the past.
(The aggro mechanic is probably the same - "why is it used, how can we use it, does it work in our game?" They didn't look at the label and said "WoW does it, therefor it's automatically good and must be done", nor "WoW does it, therefore it's automatically bad and should never be considered!")

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

This is different from a potential "aggro" mechanic how? It would only dictate one aspect of tactics (who the monster prefers to attack), and could surely be removed by ignoring it, with the DM decided on who the monster attacks. Where is the difference, other than that one is a legacy of D&D and another is not?

 

[Fifth Element]

There is no way in hell that any "aggro-system" short 10.000 pages could account for all the eventualities in that one fight alone, and as you see from the description it is only a "low-level" scenario.

This is the conclusion that the D&D designers reached as well, so it appears they agree with you. What is the contention here?

 

[Zweischneid]

This is the conclusion that the D&D designers reached as well, so it appears they agree with you. What is the contention here?

Does there have to be contention to muse and publicly discuss the latest snip of info given to us from the designers shaping the future of our favorite RPG?