From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[AllisterH]

Reasons why I'm glad that they at least thought to look at aggro.

1. The D&D game has NEVER done the bodyguard/defender role well.

I believe that such a role is "classic" to fantasy. I mean, what the hell was the whole of the point of the fellowship if not a large number of defenders protecting a weaker person. In no time do we see the enemy simply ignoring the defenders and taking out the weaker members (hobbits). They have to deal with Aragorn et al first. Either by getting them out of position or by killing them first.

In 1e/2e, there is nothing that would force an enemy to say "ok, I must deal with Defender A before I get to the back row". 3.x remedied this slightly by the use of the AoO but even there, with the weird aspect of initative and the fact that a monster can "soak" hits as you increase in level, there was no reason for the monster NOT to attack the hobbits first.

However, given some people's dislike of both minis and AoO, WOTC realized that they need a better mechanic. Thus they looked around and saw the Aggro system in WoW,

 

[Remathilis]

It's a good thing you made your save after screwing up that invocation spell, otherwise -ooooohhh- the suffering you would have endured....

psst, first rule of the message board: don't threaten the mods.

 

[amethal]

Anyone, plz, tell me: Is this huge thread about this? Because if it is, I'll skip it. Thanks.

There is also a bit of a side story, in that some people think other people's opinions are coloured by their views on MMORPGs.

And we did have a mod intervention at one point, if you like "drama".

I'd skip it if I were you

 

[The Merciful]

people's opinions are coloured by their views on MMORPGs.

Knowledge painstaikingly gained by empiric observation.

 

[Psion]

Well, just for the record/by way of comparison, as I have stated in times past on these boards, Silicon Sorcery was one of my favorite articles in Dragon, simply because pulling bits from diverse computer games forced the author to think "out of the box" a bit. So lets not go off and say that every 4e skeptic resents any MMORPG influence.

That said, I do believe it is possible to make a game too close to MMORPGs, and there is good reason to be hesitant on this score.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, just for the record/by way of comparison, as I have stated in times past on these boards, Silicon Sorcery was one of my favorite articles in Dragon, simply because pulling bits from diverse computer games forced the author to think "out of the box" a bit. So lets not go off and say that every 4e skeptic resents any MMORPG influence.

I thought we already decided that we didn't want reasonable in our discussions any more? Black & White is all we need!

That said, I do believe it is possible to make a game too close to MMORPGs, and there is good reason to be hesitant on this score.

I agree. I think the most dangerous thing is having if "feel" like a computer game: static plot that lacks alternative or imaginative routes to success (or failure ), monsters respawning, random, unsuitable treasure on a monster, repetitiveness of actions. Not all computer games have these aspects, and it's not like D&D (or other RPGs) always manage to avoid it, but the individual points are not important. (And it's also notable that these points only exist in computer games because the technology isn't good enough to do all the stuff pen & paper gives you to avoid it. It's not like these games want or have to be that way.)

 

[The Merciful]

Black & White is all we need!

Blue!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

1. The D&D game has NEVER done the bodyguard/defender role well.

I think that the reason the role has never been done very well in D&D is because the players want to be heroes. Not the heroes henchman. If I decide to roll up a fighter, it is because I want to kill things with an axe. It is not because I want to protect the Wizard.

Having said that, I think that a pure bodyguard role does make sense from the DM's side of the table, when you really are looking for ways to keep your primary villains alive. Right now, the only ways to do that are the Shield Other spell (I might have the name wrong, but I am talking about the spell where half the damage to the target of the spell goes to the caster), and by throwing so many mooks at the player that it takes them a while to cut a path to the target they want to kill.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I think that the reason the role has never been done very well in D&D is because the players want to be heroes. Not the heroes henchman. If I decide to roll up a fighter, it is because I want to kill things with an axe. It is not because I want to protect the Wizard.

It's not that a fighter should only be protecting the wizard; the problem is that under the D&D rules, he hasn't really been able to protect the wizard when it would have been necessary.

 

[grimslade]

It's a good thing you made your save after screwing up that invocation spell, otherwise -ooooohhh- the suffering you would have endured....

Right. I always mess that up. It's say his name 3 times while spinning Counter-clockwise not clockwise. Got it. Now all I need is more goats blood.