From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[Silent Cartographer]

However, I think that aggro/taunt mechanics are worth the second look the WotC people gave them, and I just disagree that their rejection was somehow "obvious". After all, who knows? Maybe looking at a flawed, but still functional idea will lead to new ideas that work great. I have seen far more improbable creative leaps.

Every job and project i have ever worked on has had a moment where we had a "great" idea that, in retrospect, turned out to be really stupid. Seems a normal part of human decision making.

Heck, even if it IS an obviously bad idea, it might be worth it to SHOW why it's a bad idea in case anyone wants to try it. I'm not seeing why people are getting all upset because they wanted to see if it'd work.

Sometimes knowing why something doesn't work is more valuable than simply knowing it doesn't. New information can bring the designers to look at new directions they didn't look at before or even consider before.

(...)

So WotC, please - go try new things no matter if the idea comes from TV, movies, literature (both recent and not-so-recent), comic books, anime or video games! Discover why they do and do not work and make D&D even better than it is now!

/em basks in the dogpile of sweet reason.

Unwillingness to test one's own convictions is the very root of ideology. :\

 

[Silent Cartographer]

Mmmmm-yeah. We'll take that under consideration.

... But while we get distracted on the value of blind trust and valid market feedback about stupid mistakes, FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD!!!

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's concern over how much from WoW (MMOGs in general) that *did* make it into the redesign, for no reason other than it's profitable-trendy.

You missed the part where they said the reason for 4e is to make the D&D game better.

If WoW stuff made it into the redesig, it's because it makes the D&D game better.

Aggro was one of those that definitely should have been tried to see if it made the D&D game better.

It didn't.

They move on.

Why so scared of the MMO influence, if it can make D&D a better game?

 

[Wolfspider]

/em basks in the dogpile of sweet reason.

Unwillingness to test one's own convictions is the very root of ideology. :\

So true.

 

[SteveC]

The unknown. Drives most of the questions that show up on this board. You hadn't noticed? When people don't know something for certain, they become concerned, ask questions and second-guess the outcomes. Basic human behavior.

And we won't know if those concerns will be borne out until after the fact. ... So it's just as silly to assume everything's fine (ala "much ado about nothing") as it is to be worried.

In the meantime, we discuss.

And this is the crux of it. I'll tell you why I'm not overly concerned. The people who are designing 4E have personalities, design philosophies and a physical track record of producing products that I like, so I'm not concerned. It all comes down to the fact that I trust Mike Mearls, just like I trusted Rodney before him when he made Star Wars Saga Edition. It will all be okay, even if I don't like some of the things they do (Warlocks, "all about elves" et al).

That's all.

--Steve

 

[Fifth Element]

... But while we get distracted on the value of blind trust and valid market feedback about stupid mistakes, WORLD OF WARCRAFT IS TAKING OVER OUR HOBBY!!!

Word of Warcraft is a PnP game? I was under the impression it's a video game.

 

[lkj]

Anyone noticed that Rodney Thompson has addressed this discussion?

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=21806&pagemode=2&blogid=2100


Toward the end of the post. Particularly he notes that we shouldn't assume that the aggro mechanic that they tried was the same as that from WoW.


Anyway . . .

AD

 

[Fifth Element]

Anyone noticed that Rodney Thompson has addressed this discussion?

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=21806&pagemode=2&blogid=2100


Toward the end of the post. Particularly he notes that we shouldn't assume that the aggro mechanic that they tried was the same as that from WoW.

I don't see why facts should get in the way of uninformed speculation.

 

[lkj]

Well, on the bright side, that comment of Rodney's about the mechanic where 'no one dies' or 'fails out' should spark a lovely whole new discussion. He does point out that it already exists, by his definition, in D&D, but as you say, speculation is fun.

AD

PS: I really do think that this kind of speculation about a game is fun, so long as one doesn't get too upset about it. I just don't think it'll have much impact on my evaluation of the game when it comes out. Still, fun to read the discussions . . .

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see why facts should get in the way of uninformed speculation.

I don't think there is any speculation going on, or to the extent that there is, both sides have the same basic assumptions. The argument basically comes down to:

"I'm glad they tried it and then didn't do it."

vs.

"I wish they didn't try it at all."

If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is reassuring, you come down on one side of the debate. If you think them trying something that you don't want them to do is not reassuring, you come down on the other. But basically everyone agrees that the unseen mechanics were bad, if only because the designers said so. No one is speculating particularly over what those mechanics were.