From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Nifft]

You must have missed how he used the term "aggro," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.

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

I don't play MMORPGs. Not even once. However, just from your post I note that:

1/ You notice and understand the term "aggro".

2/ Being able to see and understand the term "aggro" is a bad thing.

Is this accurate? I ask as an outsider.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Zaister]

Er, I feel stupid to ask, but since I don't play MMORPGs I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is an "aggro"?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Er, I feel stupid to ask, but since I don't play MMORPGs I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is an "aggro"?

Aggro is a term for a game mechanic which helps the game decide which character an AI monster attacks.

In general in MMORPG's, you want the Tank (or defender in 4e terms) to be on the top of the aggro list so that the plate wearing guy with the shield is taking all the hits that would otherwise 1 shot or 2 shot other party members.

Tanks generate aggro through taunts, sundering armor, and other special abilities. If someone pulls "aggro" off the tank, the monster then comes over and whacks the other character instead. Usually a bad thing causing wipes in the game. Healing, damage done (DPS), and special abilities all cause aggro on a monster's list as well. The trick is for the tank to generate as much aggro as possible while the DPS deals as much damage as possible without drawing aggro off the tank.

Hope this helps.


Personally, I'm glad they tried it out, and I'm interested in seeing where they're going instead, since I tended to have my NPC's go after what they perceived as being the biggest threat depending on their INT. score. So yeah, the wizard gets whacked alot if they're dealing with 15+ Int NPCs.

 

[Gloombunny]

Hope this helps.

Using MMO jargon to explain something to someone who's not familiar with MMORPGs may not be the best approach. ^_^

"aggro" refers to the way monsters in an MMO decide which player to aim their attacks at. Generally speaking, whoever hits the monster first will be the first one attacked, but during the fight the monster keeps track of who's damaging it the most and will switch targets based on those "threat" ratings. If one of the players is healing other players, that also increases the healer's threat rating. Warrior-type classes are typically designated as "tanks", meaning that they have enough durability to withstand the monster's attacks, and it's their job to make sure the monster attacks them instead of more vulnerable players. Since they can't do anywhere near as much as damage as the classes whose job it is to do damage, they instead use abilities that raise their threat rating directly, which tend to have names like "taunt". Sometimes they have attacks that deal a small amount of damage or debuff but cause extra threat.

Essentially, it's a clumsy, narrative-breaking rules system intended to let characters do the meatshield thing in games that don't have meaningful positioning.

 

[Zaister]

Thanks for the explanation.

Sounds awfully mechanical and restricting somehow though, for a tabletop RPG. So I think I'm in favor of not having this in D&D. Of course, one could always ignore such a rule.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Thanks for the explanation.

Sounds awfully mechanical and restricting somehow though, for a tabletop RPG. So I think I'm in favor of not having this in D&D. Of course, one could always ignore such a rule.

Luckily, you won't have to do that, since the WotC designers already considered an aggro mechanic, ditched it because it wasn't going to be fun, and went with something different.

Edit: And as others have said before me, I'm glad they tried it. If there's something I don't want the 4e designers doing, it's ignoring potential ideas and sources of ideas just because of some desire for "pure D&D" (as if such a thing has ever existed!).

 

[carmachu]

It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good. Interesting that even the paladin's magic doesn't force someone to attack him. Sounds more like Iron Guard's Glare than knight's challenge.

And again, seems to even MORE confirm that 4e is/was moving towards MMORPHs.....

scary.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Essentially, it's a clumsy, narrative-breaking rules system intended to let characters do the meatshield thing in games that don't have meaningful positioning.

Like morale, that gives DMs who don't know how to run monsters a chance to run them more realistically?

Eh, aggro is for me morale in reverse. I'm happy to see morale gone, I'm happy to see no aggro, though I liked that they gave it a try.

I rather have a team that tries MMORPGisms than one that tries to preserve D&D from everything MMORPGish - because, after all, a team willing to experiment is a requirement to get innovation. Even if they try stupid things.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And again, seems to even MORE confirm that 4e is/was moving towards MMORPHs.....

scary.

No. It confirms that the designers are looking carefully in possible mechanics and test out whether they work for the game. Some of them might come from online games, some of the might come from other pen & paper game systems.
If a game is very succesful, you should figure out what makes it so succesful, and steal the things that will work in your own game. Some mechanics might turn out to work only in the original game, others might work with your own game.

 

[RigaMortus2]

For those not familiar with MMOs, the term "aggro", etc...

Just want to point out, there is a reason that abilities like "Taunt" and the "aggro" mechanic in MMOs does NOT work in PvP ("player vs player" rather than "player vs NPC"). It would not be fun to force one player to attack another player just by clicking a Taunt button. So this mechanic is disabled in MMOs when you are fighting against other players, because there is someone behind the wheel of that player, making the decissions. Versus an AI controlled NPC who can't "think" for themselves.

This also reminds me of the debate for social skills. PC social skills vs. an NPC is a good way to dictate the NPCs actions. Either, if the DM doesn't know how the NPC should act OR if the DM doesn't want the NPC to volunteer info, but wants the PCs to have a chance to get the info from the NPC. That is how I see social skills primarily being used. But PC vs PC or NPC vs PC should not have the same parameters when it comes to social skills. You shouldn't be able to force a PLAYER to act in a certain way just because you rolled really high on your Intimidate skill.