From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[lkj]

If there is any misframing of the debate going on, it isn't necessarily by people on 'my' side of the debate. If you read Gloombunny, Wolfspider, and myself I think it is pretty clear that we aren't concerned with keeping the game free of 'WoW' influences. The dumb idea just happens to be associated with video games. It's a dumb idea all the same, no less or more so because of its source.

IMO, the charges that 'my' side of the debate is trying to poison the well by bring up MMORPGs or that we are trying to close debate on the subject by bring up MMORGPs, are really themselves attempts to poison the well and close debate. It's like bringing up Godwin's Law in an attempt to win the debate.

No one is suggesting that they should have rejected the idea out of hand because it comes from a computer game.

You'll notice that I put some of the words of your quote in bold. Just so we are clear, guidelines and suggestions are not rules. Guidelines and suggestions by there very nature are flexible and subject to interpretation, DM judgement, and circumstance. (One obvious difference between suggestions and rules, is that you can't program suggestions into a computer. A computer needs rules. It can't interpret and use its judgement.) There are indications that they are keeping guidelines and suggestions about how to run a monster in the game, and there are and will be very few complaints about that.

The implication of them dropping an aggro system is that at one time they had a mechanical resolution for pervasively determining which monster attacked which character, and that system could be deterministically manipulated as part of core game play. We have no idea what the details of that, and I for one never assumed that the system had been ported directly from anything else computer game or otherwise. However, I think I never cared what the details were. It's a bad idea because figuring out that sort of thing is what DMs are for, and they'll do it far better than any mechanical system.

Well, to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were poisoning the well. Or that one side was more right than another. Or that you were intentionally misframing the debate. I just get the feeling that the two sides might arguing different things (which is often the case in these sorts of debates).

At any rate, I guess that to summarize this discussion between you and me (and not everyone in the thread). You feel that aggro rules were obviously a bad idea and not worth testing. I don't agree. I think there might be versions of aggro rules that weren't obviously a bad idea. I say that because I've made some 'on the fly' type decisions about how monsters would act that essentially boil down to aggro rules. So, to me, experimenting with codifying that in the belief it might make DM'ing easier isn't <i>obviously</i> a bad idea. Incidentally, I used 'guideline' and 'suggestion' because I pretty much take all those sorts of rules that way (Note: That's just me. I understand others feel more pressured to follow the letter of the rules, and that's understandable).

But regardless-- I'm not trying to make you agree with me. It's fine that we have a different perspective on the matter. You think aggro rules were obviously not worth trying. That's not at all clear to me. It's not clear to me because I think that there might be implementations that would work out. It turns out the designers decided, after trying a method out, that it didn't work. And that's that.

It seems to me that the deeper part of this discussion is whether you feel that their trying out aggro rules indicates that the designers are incompetent and that that incompetence may result in a game you don't like. My answer to that: Nope. It doesn't indicate that at all. But that's just my opinion . . .

Cheers,
AD

 

[Silent Cartographer]

1) I don't see anyone here saying 'It's not good that they test new ideas', or even 'It's not good that they test ideas that come from video games'. Nobody is arguing with that. Rather it is indeed that we are arguing, 'It's not good that they tested an aggro mechanic.'

Well.., I've been wrong before, but Driddle has certainly convinced me that he takes No Good Can Come To D&D From MMOGs!!! as an axiom.

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

At the risk of nitpicking, the word 'obvious' keeps popping up in this context. From a scientific point of view, 'obvious' has little value. The whole point of testing is to elminate the need or relevance of 'obvious'.

I don't care if they tested pop-o-matic based movement; as long as their testing methods are up to scratch, there are no worries. Second-guessing WotC time management seems to me a bit beyond the envelope of meaningful speculation. IMO, YMMV, ack, thbbbt, etc.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you can point me to the post where the poster says that he wishes that they didn't drop the rules that they tested from the game, I'd appreciate it. I didn't see anyone saying, "I'm glad they tried it, but I wish they didn't drop it from the game because it sounds like a really good idea."

So anyone who says "it's good that they tested it" and says nothing about the rules themselves are counted as someone happy that the rules were dropped? Because that's a good number of folks.

 

[HeinorNY]

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

vs.

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

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

 

[Driddle]

Well.., I've been wrong before, but Driddle has certainly convinced me that he takes No Good Can Come To D&D From MMOGs!!! as an axiom.

Do not invoke my name lightly, mortal.

 

[Henrix]

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

Yep, that's basically it. Don't bother with it.

 

[Driddle]

Yep, that's basically it. Don't bother with it.

No. NOW it's about love, respect and understanding.

We're healing.

 

[Henry]

Do not invoke my name lightly, mortal.

You mean like, "Driddle, Driddle, fo-fiddle, piddle-diddle mo-middle DRIDDLE?" 'cause, yeah, that would suck.

Me, I'm happy without 'em. Didn't like morale, and don't like a hard and fast system similar to it. But that they tried it and found it lacking? Doesn't bother me. It would have bothered me had they kept it, because of my desire to make DM'ing easier, not more work.

 

[Fifth Element]

How can you be for a game system which the designer rejected as bad? The better question is, "Why didn't the designer foresee just how unfun this would be ahead of time?"

I'm not for aggro. I'm for testing new ideas, not rejecting them without testing them.

The answer to your question, I guess, is "Because the designers are not psychic." It is easy to arm-chair the designers' actions, but without being involved we have no idea how the whole aggro thing played out.

I still assert that the designers' willingness to test new ideas, even if some people consider them to be "obviously" bad, is a good thing. Provided, of course, that they reject ideas that do turn out to be bad, which appears to be the case.

I just cannot see how testing new ideas can be troubling. You may think it's "obvious" that their unknown aggro mechanics were a bad idea, but again I suggest that's easy to say on a message board, not so easy if you make your living designing and developing game mechanics.

But perhaps you're not the one to really be arguing with. It's really Driddle, with comments like:

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

Which implies that any idea inspired by a MMO is necessarily bad.

 

[Driddle]

You mean like, "Driddle, Driddle, fo-fiddle, piddle-diddle mo-middle DRIDDLE?" 'cause, yeah, that would suck.

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