Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zweischneid" data-source="post: 3883262" data-attributes="member: 11843">Well, I would agree that it was a pretty foolish thing to try out. After all, &quot;aggro&quot; is a (more or less) imperfect substitute used most commonly by computer games to get around the fact that there isn't a &quot;real intelligence&quot; controlling the players opponents. Since Pen&amp;Paper are however defined by and large by the presence of a GM taking control of the players opponents, I can see why many people have been perplexed by the choice of the playtesters to spend time on that.So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things. Them trying out an &quot;aggro&quot; system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&amp;D 4th or simply their intelligence <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.So I guess, I do fall in that &quot;camp&quot; you describe there in some regards. However, already by labeling it a &quot;camp&quot;, you forgo looking at the variety of arguments brought against the idea of including an &quot;aggro&quot; mechanism, which is already vast indeed in this one thread alone.Besides that, I wasn't aware my &quot;camp&quot; was under contention&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zweischneid, post: 3883262, member: 11843"] Well, I would agree that it was a pretty foolish thing to try out. After all, "aggro" is a (more or less) imperfect substitute used most commonly by computer games to get around the fact that there isn't a "real intelligence" controlling the players opponents. Since Pen&Paper are however defined by and large by the presence of a GM taking control of the players opponents, I can see why many people have been perplexed by the choice of the playtesters to spend time on that. So no, I'm not entirely against the designers trying out new things. Them trying out an "aggro" system in a game that is (I think) still intended to be run with a GM does however leave some serious doubts about the designers grasp of what it is they're actually testing there, their underlying motivations for D&D 4th or simply their intelligence ;). So I guess, I do fall in that "camp" you describe there in some regards. However, already by labeling it a "camp", you forgo looking at the variety of arguments brought against the idea of including an "aggro" mechanism, which is already vast indeed in this one thread alone. Besides that, I wasn't aware my "camp" was under contention :cool: As you noted, the designers ultimately agreed with me! [/QUOTE]

Verification