From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[FadedC]

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.



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.

Well I think it's important to note that based on what they said, they never actually considered an aggro system where different actions generated different amounts of threat. All they considered was giving a taunt type ability to defender class characters that forced a (presumably single) enemy to attack them. Many people were talking as if the aggro thing was a set of rules that forced every monster to attack certain targets, but that would seem to be a completely unsupported overreaction.

 

[Driddle]

I suddenly realize what the "points of light" reference means!:

Computer screens shining in darkened rooms around the world as gamers lose track of the hours while playing World of Warcraft.

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

Well I think it's important to note that based on what they said, they never actually considered an aggro system where different actions generated different amounts of threat. All they considered was giving a taunt type ability to defender class characters that forced a (presumably single) enemy to attack them. Many people were talking as if the aggro thing was a set of rules that forced every monster to attack certain targets, but that would seem to be a completely unsupported overreaction.

That I'm not so sure about. Mearls actually mentions 'monster' scripts' in his post. I think the 'mission statement' that Rich Baker told us about was originally designed as the aggro mechanic and was already written into the monster entries they've completed. They just toned it down to a guideline after they decided not to enforce it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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 .

Why?

There are other points where the D&D game has, for a long time, told DMs or Players what their characters may do.

And those, like this mechanic, have been largely discarded as "too limiting."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

The aggro system is not easy to remove, at least none of the examples I've seen.

The aggro system, as described (possibly hysterically, though) is that the monster must attack whoever has the highest aggro rating (eg whoever did the most damage, or perhaps slightly more complex, eg based on whoever is taunting it, whoever healed the most hit points last round, etc) instead of leaving that to the DM's judgement. Also that adds a layer of math that is just not necessary.

This is quite different from a "monster script" which is not codified into rules and the DM is free to ignore. This is simply advice, not aggro, at least from the way I view it.

The knight had several "aggro" abilities, some of which were well-designed, and others of which amounted to non-FX mind control and drew lots of negative attention (and just happened to bear some similarity to the way MMOs and other CRPGs deal with the issue).

Morale, by contrast hardly impinged on the rules, and wasn't written into the abilities of any of the core classes. It was easy to toss out or ignore if you didn't want to use it.

I think MMOs and other computer games use aggro systems because a computer isn't actually intelligent, and so they need something that simulates intelligence. I'm going to ignore the obvious metagaming component that applies to some games (eg "manage your aggro to beat Illidan!") A human DM doesn't need that tool, and if it's complex and/or hard-coded into the game rules it would cause far more problems than they solve.

 

[The Little Raven]

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 .

This sounds dangerously close to an insult by suggesting that they are either incompetent ("serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing their"), deceptive ("their underlying motivations for D&D 4th"), or stupid ("or simply their intelligence").

I find it funny that several "anti-4e" types often end up suggesting that the people involved in some of the most well-designed and popular games in the past decade lack competence, honesty, or intelligence, then expect us to respect their opinions...

 

[Wolfspider]

This sounds dangerously close to an insult by suggesting that they are either incompetent ("serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing their"), deceptive ("their underlying motivations for D&D 4th"), or stupid ("or simply their intelligence").

I find it funny that several "anti-4e" types often end up suggesting that the people involved in some of the most well-designed and popular games in the past decade lack competence, honesty, or intelligence, then expect us to respect their opinions...

A moderator warned him about this post already. It's all cool.

 

[The Little Raven]

A moderator warned him about this post already. It's all cool.

Hadn't noticed. Well... carry on.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Aggro and Morale are not the same things. Aggro refers to how a given creature determines who to attack. Morale is simply a system for determining when a creature realizes it cannot win and then acts accordingly.

(Psi)SeveredHead is correct. A Combat Script is not an Aggro system. It is more of a combination of Aggro, Morale, and an attack routine. All it does is suggest who a creature will likely attack, how it will do so, and when it will probably run away. In all likely hood, it will probably do so in a manner consistent with the flavour of the creature.

Combat scripts for very simple creatures are not really needed, but they do help. As has been noted, animals kill for food, territory, and to protect its young. In most cases, it wont keep fighting if it is losing a fight. Mindless undead are also easy.

But when you start to add in special abilities and spells, and the choice between ranged weapons and melee, that is where a combat script gets useful.

Consider Orc's and Hobgoblins. I have seen plenty of posts suggesting that one gets dropped entirely, because who really needs two monsters that are 1 HD?

Going by what is in the current MM, it states that Hobgoblins have a strong grasp of tactics and are capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans. Orcs favour doing the most damage in the least time, attack from ambush, and are prone to go for betrayal. How do you manifest that difference?

I would have Orcs typically charge into melee, and gang up on targets. They would try to attack at night, and open with a volley of Javelins to soften up the opponents. They will charge in, and keep swinging until you either defeat them or they kill you. They probably do not take prisoners.

I would have Hobgoblins more willing to attack in daylight, and I would stick to using their bows as long as possible, using cover. If they even start to lose, they wil retreat and regroup, using the time to let opponents spells expire. They are only out to win, so they will offer a surrender and take prisoners. If they are losing, they may offer a truce to save their own skin.

My point? An encounter with 10 hard hitting Orcs in a fierce melee who are determined to kill you is a much different encounter than 10 archers who keep their distance and try to wear you down and are determined to survive. You could justify running both types of encounter with one or the other. But the combat script and the flavour text together give a DM a much better idea of how to handle an unexpected situation.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[SteveC]

I wanted to thank TwinBahamut, WolfSpider, and Gloombunny for taking a moment to answer my question. For some reason this topic has stirred up a serious amount of anger that frankly I don't get, but the three of you have pretty much explained the problems to me.

It seems like we're talking two entirely separate problems here that are at best tangentially related. In MMORPGS, we largely have a technology problem where characters and monsters can move over each other and get at weaker characters even if there are stronger meat shields in front. I see that as largely a technology issue, and an agro system makes some degree of sense if you want to have fragile characters like wizards not be constantly dying.

With that in mind, it seems like there's also a problem that wizard-like characters are simply too weak, and martial characters just can't do enough damage to compete for top of the food chain in terms of what will draw monsters attention. To me that sounds like a game play issue, and something that relates a lot more to D&D.

D&D does have a system where monsters can't just attack squishy, protected wizards without consequences, but a fair bit could be done to make that easier to work with. If I remember correctly, there is a feat that let's you stop a character's movement with an AoO (outside of making a trip attack, which would obviously do that if it's successful).

Additionally, I play a Crusader in a current D&D game who has a stance that gives any of my friends +4 to their AC from attacks by any opponent that I threaten. Add to that a shield block counter that gives a bonus to AC, and I find that I get attacked about 75% of the time, which works for me fairly well.

It seems like building on those mechanics would be a more effective way to create the desired goal of making a tank like character the preferred target: if you make that character essential to the defense of the group, they have to be the first to fall.

Beyond that, making the fighter or similar character comparable to the wizard in terms of the damage they can do seems to make even more sense: if you can't ignore the fighter to get to the wizard, you largely have to deal with the fighter first.

With all of that said, is there room for some kind of taunt/trick action in D&D that forces the hand of your opponent? I think there is, but I would put it in the realm of NPC only actions, much like how you can't use Diplomacy on a PC. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an effect in the game that could make an intelligent but low-willed opponent made enough to focus their attacks on the source of their aggression. I just think that the abilities of the Knight are not worded in the best way possible.

It seems like 4E will not be doing much in this area, which will likely be a good thing, because if the designers can't make something that's both fun and interesting, what is it doing in the game in the first place?

Mike Mearls blog pretty much says all of that...they tried it, it didn't work, and now it's gone. From what everyone is saying, it certainly seems to me like exploring the possibilities of such rules was a good thing, something that would serve to streamline the game significantly if it was done right. As they couldn't find a way to do it right, it's not going in the game. What's the problem?

--Steve