From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Fifth Element]

So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things. Blech.

Welcome to the 4E forum. It's a very informative place, in more ways than one.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why do people seem to think that this is the first time this has come up. The Knight's Challenge is pretty much aggro mechanics for D&D.

Not me. I complained about the Knight's Challenge. I don't care if it's based on an MMO or not, the Knight shouldn't have mind control. If this were 1980 and the Knight's Challenge had been introduced then (and I was an active gamer rather than an infant) I would still have complained about it.

Way back when, the Kender Taunt did much the same thing.

And the kender was one of the single most annoying concepts invented in DnD... IMO. However, complaints about kender tend to revolve around the requirements to "acquire shiny objects" which gets the party in trouble any time an NPC notices this (or the kender wanders off, which could also result in the party having to rescue the kender or get them in trouble, etc)...

So, we've had aggro mechanics in the game for 20 years, but, now, all of a sudden it's making the game more video gamey?

Buh?

It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.

Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.

 

[Wolfspider]

Welcome to the 4E forum. It's a very informative place, in more ways than one.

Sigh. Reading posts like this really depress me. I get the idea that people are looking down on me because I disagree with some design decisions. It really shouldn't be that personal.

So ENworld has finally stooped to this, a bunch of people berating the designers for trying new things. Blech.

I haven't seen "a bunch" of posters berating the designers for trying new things. Some people are disagreeing with the need to try an old thing that doesn't seem to work very well from a vastly different medium.

Please don't look for a fight when there is none. It is possible to disagree with things without making them personal.

 

[Wolfspider]

It's in vogue to bash video games, in order to appear intellectually superior, or something along those lines.

Instead of bashing the Knight's Challenge for being a dumb ability, it gets bashed for being an MMO ability. I'd rather see the bashing be directed properly.

I agree with your accessment here. I have nothing against MMOs at all. I've played a few and have plenty of friends who do likewise. It's fun.

I do hate the idea of a rule that would take away the DM's choice on how to have the monsters under his control react. I can see that this would lead to a lot of silly abuse.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In which case it was inspired by GURPS, which would make sense.

But during the seminars at the 3e rollout at GenCon, the 3e designers (Monte, Tweet, and Skip) mentioned that Fallout the computer game inspired some things they did in 3e. I was there, I heard them say specifically that Fallout's Perks inspired Feats.

Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, 3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY! It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right

 

[Wolfspider]

But during the seminars at the 3e rollout at GenCon, the 3e designers (Monte, Tweet, and Skip) mentioned that Fallout the computer game inspired some things they did in 3e. I was there, I heard them say specifically that Fallout's Perks inspired Feats.

Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, 3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY! It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right

I believe the internet expression is "FOR THE WIN!!!!"

 

[Maggan]

Some people are disagreeing with the need to try an old thing that doesn't seem to work very well from a vastly different medium.

And that's what's so strange to me. WotC tried something out, verified that it didn't work, and chucked the rule out. The rule won't appear in 4e, and some posters are still not happy, since the mere thought of the 4e design team even just thinking about trying out some rules is somehow to be derided.

A good designer has the guts to try stuff out. Things that look good on paper might suck, and things that look bad on paper might rock. A designer that sets up needless barriers and boundaries in his own head and thereby refuses to try new OR old stuff is a bad designer, IMO.

/M

 

[Henry]

Being a sarcastic devil's advocate now. 'cuz, ya know, 3E D&D WAS VIDEO GAMEY! It only matters that designers were inspired by a video game, right

But the chain of evidence takes it back to GURPS, which was written by Steve Jackson, who used to work for TSR in England, and TSR was founded by Gary, who co-created D&D.

Feats - Fallout - GURPS - Jackson - TSR - D&D

Six degrees! It all goes back to D&D.

 

[BryonD]

It was not that long ago that Dragon magazine had a regular column that was based on the idea of implementing concepts from computer games into D&D. It was a really good idea. And it wasn't a "let's make D&D a video game" thing. It was a "lets use other cool games as a muse and use that to think outside the box" thing.

The little bit we have been offered here seems exactly the same. There is a difference between trying to put WOW aggro into D&D and seeing that it might be a good idea to allow some characters to draw attacks sometimes.

It is a good thing that they are thinking outside the box and looking around for new ideas.
It is a good thing that they are testing them with an open mind.
It is a good thing that they are willing to walk away from ideas when they don't hold up.
It would be a bad thing to get stuck in a knee-jerk anything-remotely-associated-with-WOW must suck by definition mentality.
I really really don't want D&D to seem like WOW. A lot of great ideas can be drawn from WOW and adapted into D&D.

 

[Dragonblade]

And that's what's so strange to me. WotC tried something out, verified that it didn't work, and chucked the rule out. The rule won't appear in 4e, and some posters are still not happy, since the mere thought of the 4e design team even just thinking about trying out some rules is somehow to be derided.

A good designer has the guts to try stuff out. Things that look good on paper might suck, and things that look bad on paper might rock. A designer that sets up needless barriers and boundaries in his own head and thereby refuses to try new OR old stuff is a bad designer, IMO.

/M

I'm with you on this. So they tried an aggro mechanic and then tossed it. This is just great evidence that the designers are doing a good job.

They are not afraid to try new mechanics if it will make the game better, and they are not afraid to toss those mechanics when they realize it hurt the game. That should be what good game design is all about. I don't see a problem.