From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[KoshPWNZYou]

Might I hazard a guess that the word 'aggro' was used here precisely because Mike is aware that the people who would make the biggest fuss about this are the ones familiar with MMO's? Maybe it's his attempt to speak directly to the people who are worrying that D&D is being turned into an MMO? We know there are MMO fans on the design team; we can figure out who they are from their blogs. I see this whole thing as evidence that their voices are not directing 4e's development as much as some seem to think.

As for the concept itself, I think the folks who are mentioning AoO's are right on the mark. Isn't that where AoO's are going? Immediate actions useable by the Defender types? With a broader range of uses (ie nailing the guy who just attacked the wizard)?

 

[Zweischneid]

I have known many people who were brand new to running things and I can imagine that an actual aggro system in D&D would have helped them get into th swing of things a bit faster. Run with the aggro system in place for awhile, get a feel for how combat should flow, then ignore aggro and follow your instincts. Not everyone has very clear thoughts about how combat should go the first time they run.

Remember, the new edition isn't being published just for the people who have always played, it's being made for all teh people who will also be new to the hobby.

I think there's some misconception of what "Aggro" means.

Noones saying there shouldn't be guidlines and tactical tips in the MM to teach you (or give you ideas) on how to effectively go about. Infact, as far as we know they will be in there.

An "aggro" system however much more integrated into the core mechanics and only ever useful if it can by accessed by PC capabilites (i.e. players able to "taunt" monsters, redirect "aggro", etc..). In that regard, it's clearly taking a DM job and putting it into the players hand for purposeful exploitation (and vice versa, see below).

I think the reverse concern M.Mearls expressed at the end of his post captures the issue quite well.

There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D). We want DMs to make NPC fighters and paladins, and it would be really dumb if the DM had to impose a threat or aggro mechanic that dictated who the PCs had to attack.

By turning the tables, I think it's obvious to see how "aggro" potentially threatens to turns a collegial game (where DM and players collaborate to tell fantastic stories) into an antagonistic setup where the meta-level struggel about the strategic control of NPCs and PC (yes, a DM would be able to use "aggro" against players aswell) takes the focus away from the actual game (i.e. I'm a fantasy warrior battling fearsome creatures).

That, obviously, should be a no-go from the start.

 

[Vael]

So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things.

Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence.

I find it quite reasonable that they'd at least try an Aggro system, as it fits with one of their stated aims for 4e, that it's an easier game to DM. A good Aggro system would theoretically do the same things for a DM that it does for computers, reduce their workload.

 

[SSquirrel]

So is this an issue of it being a "bad idea" to give the players nifty abilities that make the monsters do things the DM didn't tell them to? We already have those, they're called spells and feats Players having an ability to taunt a monster off of teh squishy mage and onto the strong warrior makes perfect sense from the view that the warrior's job is to make sure the mage (and the rest of the party) lives, so why not give him more capabilities that let him do his job better?

If warriors have a taunt-like ability in 4E and you were playing a game set in feudal Japan, the player could use the ability and say that they challenged the samurai's lineage (implying he's a bastard or somesuch), which the samurai would be honorbound to defend, leave the mage alone, and kill the warrior who dared utter such a claim.

He just pulled aggro back off the mage w/o dishing out a big attack, which some people say is wrong. Maybe you're fighting a group of orcs and the warrior yells out in orcish that the big hulking orc who is stalking their healer should come challenge a real combatant and leave the men in dresses alone. A reasonable thing to attack its manliness and insinuate that it can only be successful when fighting weaker enemies. So off it goes to fight a true warrior.

Storywise, both of those examples are very good uses of a taunt-like ability. When you're looking at the book tho, all you see is "Taunt:Use this ability and one target opponent leaves his current opponent and comes at you". Yes you'll have players who just say "Yeah I taunt the guy", but if they're enjoying the game at all and like playing in character, you'll probably have some sort of response more like what I gave as examples.

I don't think a full aggro system where you can just do a Challenging Shout and have every monster in the area come beat on you would work in D&D like it does in WoW, but a singular taunt effect like I described would be perfectly fine. In a combat w/10 opponents it won't make a huge bit of difference, but you can give the healer enough time to get a heal on the one who needs it most while you tie up that opponent.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Might I hazard a guess that the word 'aggro' was used here precisely because Mike is aware that the people who would make the biggest fuss about this are the ones familiar with MMO's?

Actually, I think he used it because he was entering a discussion where the term was being used. It's a response to discussions and concerns, not the launch of a wholly new discussion (cf. the link in the first post).

 

[Driddle]

So it also should have been obvious to Gary and Co back in the 70s that morale was obviously wrongbadfun ...

I don't think "wrongbadfun" had been invented yet.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence .

Adding a smiley doesn't make it permissible to insult other peoples intelligence or motivations.

Don't do it again, or you will be suspended. If you have any questions about this, feel free to email me.

 

[see]

This sort of post is exactly the sort of thing that gives me hope for the 4e mechanics. And thus makes me all the more disappointed in the fact that the 4e mechanics aren't going to be supporting the implicit world of thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons, but some new and untested fantasy setting.

 

[Kintara]

This sort of post is exactly the sort of thing that gives me hope for the 4e mechanics. And thus makes me all the more disappointed in the fact that the 4e mechanics aren't going to be supporting the implicit world of thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons, but some new and untested fantasy setting.

I don't think "Points of Light" and other setting material is really a "setting," as such. You could call it a default setting skeleton. I think the main reason they are going to this PoL model is so that they can put out generic adventures that can be plugged in to any setting (especially homebrews that embrace the PoL style).

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

Actually, I think he used it because he was entering a discussion where the term was being used. It's a response to discussions and concerns, not the launch of a wholly new discussion (cf. the link in the first post).

Ah, I didn't realize that was part of a thread. So he didn't even choose the term aggro himself, and he was directly answering the concerns of people who were on an MMO mindset. In that context, 'aggression mechanics' would actually have sounded a bit impersonal.