Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 4136756" data-attributes="member: 17077">Marking just really seems out of place to me in a pen and paper RPG. This type of mechanic exists in games like World of Warcraft because the monsters lack any real intelligence. Instead, they simply attack the person that has the most &quot;aggro&quot;, which is calculated based on damage dealt, healing done, etc. Tank classes in these kinds of games thus need some kind of mechanic to force the monster to attack them in situations where their squishy mage or priest friend pulled aggro.The problem with this is, it's totally unnecessary and, IMO, ridiculous to do something like this in a pen and paper RPG where every creature, friend or foe, is controlled by a human being. The DM can determine who has pissed off a monster in a certain situation alot better than a computer program with very basic AI can. &quot;Aggro&quot; isn't even something that is measured in a game like D&amp;D, at least not in a technical sense. Will a monster turn on a Wizard that just hit him with some nasty spell, or turn on the healer that is obviously keeping the &quot;tank&quot; alive? It depends on the monster and the situation, which is why there is a DM. Marking simply removes this interaction and attempts to force it in a very artificial and contrived way. And even in MMOs, many creatures are immune to being &quot;taunted,&quot; for good reason. Marking in D&amp;D 4e seems to work not only automatically (no save), it seems to work on any creature.Forgetting the problems with running it (I found it to be quite a nusance when our group ran the Oakhurst adventure), I find myself wondering why this game mechanic even was considered to have a place in a pen and paper RPG to begin with. I've never in previous editions thought to myself, gee, I wish fighters and Paladins could effectively force people to attack them. If anything, I think these abilities reduce the level of strategy and movement in the battle rather than add to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Falling Icicle, post: 4136756, member: 17077"] Marking just really seems out of place to me in a pen and paper RPG. This type of mechanic exists in games like World of Warcraft because the monsters lack any real intelligence. Instead, they simply attack the person that has the most "aggro", which is calculated based on damage dealt, healing done, etc. Tank classes in these kinds of games thus need some kind of mechanic to force the monster to attack them in situations where their squishy mage or priest friend pulled aggro. The problem with this is, it's totally unnecessary and, IMO, ridiculous to do something like this in a pen and paper RPG where every creature, friend or foe, is controlled by a human being. The DM can determine who has pissed off a monster in a certain situation alot better than a computer program with very basic AI can. "Aggro" isn't even something that is measured in a game like D&D, at least not in a technical sense. Will a monster turn on a Wizard that just hit him with some nasty spell, or turn on the healer that is obviously keeping the "tank" alive? It depends on the monster and the situation, which is why there is a DM. Marking simply removes this interaction and attempts to force it in a very artificial and contrived way. And even in MMOs, many creatures are immune to being "taunted," for good reason. Marking in D&D 4e seems to work not only automatically (no save), it seems to work on any creature. Forgetting the problems with running it (I found it to be quite a nusance when our group ran the Oakhurst adventure), I find myself wondering why this game mechanic even was considered to have a place in a pen and paper RPG to begin with. I've never in previous editions thought to myself, gee, I wish fighters and Paladins could effectively force people to attack them. If anything, I think these abilities reduce the level of strategy and movement in the battle rather than add to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification