From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[KoshPWNZYou]

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.

It's at this point that I think we can be reasonably sure this thread has pushed up a daisy.

 

[Fifth Element]

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 definitely agree that D&D could be made too much like a MMORPG. But I'm not sure there's reason to be hesitant; the fact that the designers have already rejected something resembling an "aggro" system indicates they are not going for MMORPG-y stuff all over the place. If anything, this news should be comforting to anyone not wanting D&D to be too MMORPG-y, not worrisome.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game.

That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.

Many new ideas are bad ideas, and you shouldn't waste time testing obviously bad ideas.

....seems to contradict your assertion.

OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"

To which I would have to say "Obvious to whom?"

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"

I'd say riding a unicycle along the edge of a cliff is an obviously bad idea. Wile E. Cyotee did that in one episode of Loony Toons and died for about the 743rd time. But I don't think it's a bad idea because of that. I just think it's a bad idea.

 

[Celebrim]

....seems to contradict your assertion.

I don't see how. I don't fully agree with Driddle on both style and substance, but I don't see why I should accept your uncharitable characterization of what he's saying.

OR, perhaps, you believe that it's not "because they're inspired by a video game," but merely because they're "obviously bad ideas?"

I don't think it is either. I believe Driddle comment is what it is on its face - a criticism of a development process which to Driddle is too uncritical of adopting facets of popular computer games into D&D. I think if I had to paraphrase Driddle it wouldn't be, "All ideas from video games are bad ideas." but rather, "Just because it works for a video game, doesn't mean it should be treated like a good idea."

As a programmer and player of both pen and paper and computer RPGs, I can sympathize with that. So often computers do things the way they do because they are such a limited platform compared to the human imagination. And alot of things that they do do well, like say basic arithmatic or book keeping, aren't necessarily applicable to PnP games because humans don't do that nearly as well or as speedily.

I leave it to Driddle to decide who has gathered the better sense of his posts.

To which I would have to say "Obvious to whom?"

Well, obvious to me, obviously. And, obvious I would hope to any game designer that isn't so wrapped up in the design process that they've lost track of the reasons why they are doing the things that they are doing. Mearls is a pretty good designer. I'm not at all surprised that he rejected this sort of thing. I am surprised, especially based on his prior comments about his own understanding of what made for a good design, that he tried this in the first place. It should have been completely obvious that if you tried to impose this sort of constraint on DMs, one of the first things that they'd do was simply ignore the rules. Much like the 'morale' system from earlier editions, DMs will tend to ignore the rule in favor of thier own judgement of what is fun and will resent players telling them what monsters do. When you design into the rules a rule that is made to be broken, and which it seems likely most groups are going to ignore, it calls into question whether it should be a rule in the first place.

This is also an example of trying to compete with a computer game by playing your weakness against its strength, instead of your strength against its weakness. One of the strengths of PnP is the richness of behavior and complexity that having a DM can bring to NPCs that computers just can't provide. Monsters behaving mechanically is one of the weakness of computers, and one of the sources of tedium in those games in the long run. By incorporating that weakness into a PnP game, you run the risk of having a situation where when 6 gamers get to gather, they'd rather have a LAN party (or get together online) than play a PnP because the PnP isn't offering much of anything that the cRPG isn't, and no one wants to be the DM because the job is reduced to drudgery. It should be obvious that on the whole, making this a rule rather than a suggestion, decreases DM fun rather than increases it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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



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".

Yes there was, he was called the Dungeon Master. Sadly, WOTC is trying to remove his role from the game altogether. By 5e, he'll be sitting in a bar somewhere, beside the gnome and ranger, drowning his sorrows.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see how. I don't fully agree with Driddle on both style and substance, but I don't see why I should accept your uncharitable characterization of what he's saying.

What characterization? What uncharitability? I said that his statement that MMO's "on the brain" does some sort of "damage" seems to contradict your assertion that "no one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game." Driddle appears to be suggesting EXACTLY that, saying that this idea should be rejected out-of-hand specifically because thinking about MMO mechanics does some sort of mental damage, or is evidence of some sort of mental defect. I don't know how else you could interpret his statement.

You're going to have to do more than accuse me of somehow spinning his statement to show me that this interpretation, which seems quite evident, is incorrect.

a criticism of a development process which to Driddle is too uncritical of adopting facets of popular computer games into D&D.

How is that substantially different from rejecting ideas out-of-hand because of their inspiration?

I leave it to Driddle to decide who has gathered the better sense of his posts.

You missed the quote from yourself in there, too. The idea that some ideas are "obviously bad ideas" is a fallacy.

Well, obvious to me, obviously. And, obvious I would hope to any game designer that isn't so wrapped up in the design process that they've lost track of the reasons why they are doing the things that they are doing.

Fallacy. Your own experience is not universal, and your own opinion is not the most logical opinion for everyone to hold (though it probably is the most logical for YOU to hold). It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that your views are or should be universally held by those of sufficient logical ability.

It should have been completely obvious that if you tried to impose this sort of constraint on DMs, one of the first things that they'd do was simply ignore the rules.

DMs vary wildly in their implementation of the D&D rules. This is a recognized advantage of the D&D rules: their ability to be transformed easily. For anyone to assume anything about even most DM's (let alone all DM's) is shaky ground at best, ESPECIALLY if it hasn't been tested and shown to be true across several different DMs. It's pure hubris to assume you know what most DM's will do without first seeing if several different DM's do the same thing.

This is also an example of trying to compete with a computer game by playing your weakness against its strength, instead of your strength against its weakness.

This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.

The following position makes sense to me: "Hey, that game-mechanics idea worked fantastically well for that computer RPG. Let's see if we can generate success by integrating it into the rules of this tabletop RPG. If we can, great! If not, oh well, it must not translate well."

The following exchange also makes sense to me:
A: But our game probably won't interface well with that idea because it relies on different base assumptions about the mechanics of play than our game does.
B: Sure, but if we try it out and it somehow works, we gain something. And even if it doesn't work, we'll have a much better idea of why it doesn't work, which will inform our decisions regarding design in other places. It's a win/win situation.

So I can see why running stolen ideas through the design machine is probably a good practise.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes there was, he was called the Dungeon Master. Sadly, WOTC is trying to remove his role from the game altogether. By 5e, he'll be sitting in a bar somewhere, beside the gnome and ranger, drowning his sorrows.

Do you have any proof of that or are you content to stick with hyperbole?

 

[Celebrim]

What characterization? What uncharitability? I said that his statement that MMO's "on the brain" does some sort of "damage" seems to contradict your assertion that "no one is suggesting that they reject ideas out-of-hand because they're inspired by a video game." Driddle appears to be suggesting EXACTLY that, saying that this idea should be rejected out-of-hand specifically because thinking about MMO mechanics does some sort of mental damage, or is evidence of some sort of mental defect. I don't know how else you could interpret his statement.

"on the brain" is a English phrase which means to obsess over something unhealtily. Obsessing carries a negative conotation (and hense is 'poisoning the well') but, assuming that we accept his assessment that the design team is obsessed with MMORPGs, then it follows immediately that there has been some sort of damage to the design process.

I've probably done as much as anyone to popularize the complaint of attacking another person as mentally defective for holding a given opinion, but I don't see 'the damage has been done' as being a complaint that the designer was brain damaged. My interpretation was 'the damage has been done to game'. It's only after his initial post where people accuse him of talking about viruses and such that that comes up, and then he accepts it with a 'smile' and back in your face attitude that I've come to expect from Driddle. But let's let him speak for himself, 'k?

You're going to have to do more than accuse me of somehow spinning his statement to show me that this interpretation, which seems quite evident, is incorrect.

I don't think that it is evident at all, but if you do, then by the very definition of 'evident' there probably isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

How is that substantially different from rejecting ideas out-of-hand because of their inspiration?

The difference between saying 'Something is bad because it came from video games' and 'Something isn't good because it came from video games'. If you can't see how that isn't a substantially different and much weaker claim, I'm not going to try to lecture you in logic.

You missed the quote from yourself in there, too. The idea that some ideas are "obviously bad ideas" is a fallacy.

I disagree. And leaving aside a long argument about human judgement tuitive or intuitive, just on the grounds of consistancy I'd love to hear what your axiom that rejects 'obvious' is, but allows you to make claims about things seeming evident and distinguish whether things are or are not substantially different.

Fallacy. Your own experience is not universal, and your own opinion is not the most logical opinion for everyone to hold (though it probably is the most logical for YOU to hold).

My own opinion is not necessarily the most logical opinion for everyone to hold. It could be. And in this case I think it is. Again, unless you are arguing that the discarded mechanic was a good one, I don't see how you think you can get much milage out of this. 'It's a bad idea, but there is no way you could have foreknown that it was a bad idea'? Really? You don't think there are ways to foreknow anything?

It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that your views are or should be universally held by those of sufficient logical ability.

It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that I'm always right. It is not unreasonable or unfair to assume that my views should be held by other people, nor is it unreasonable for me to assume that my opinion is reasonable. Everyone does assume that there views should be held by other people, or if they don't, then they don't argue about it. So lets just dispense with that distraction from the topic now.

This adversarial relationship is a false constraint. Diversity informs diversity. It's not a pure A vs. B relationship.

I don't think I need to believe that it is a purely adversarial relationship to believe as I do. For all your complaints about it, explicit and implicit, you seem hung up on 'A vs. B' alot more than I am.