Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4595566" data-attributes="member: 32536">I am familiar with the growth of those terms. I did play Everquest, after all, though I appreciate not being reminded of the fact...The problem with that analogy is that, to a certain extent, those roles are naturally inherent to class-based systems built around team play. The designers of Everquest did not intend for "roles" to exist, they were created by the players trying to build strategies that worked out of the limited options they had available. It is something similar to how the "tank-mage" is an inherent problem to any point-buy system, regardless of that system being for a videogame or an RPG. The MMORPG community may have given popular names to the ideas, but it is little more than a natural evolution of something inherent to D&D from the start. Roles may very well have existed in 4E even if there wasn't an MMORPG to inspire them, since they are a solution to one of 3E's biggest problems and are rooted in some of the basic class archetypes that have existed since OD&D.Put in other words, roles exist because people gave healing to the priest classes, debuffing and raw attack power to the mage classes, sneak attack/backstab damage to thief classes, and made fighter classes indestructible. All that MMORPGs did was emulate these class concepts, and the role system naturally emerged thanks to player categorization. It probably started among D&D players long before MMORPGs (and based on the 3E advice that the Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard team is the "default", it was in place at the start of 3E).4E doesn't use aggro. I am glad it doesn't. I hate aggro. The concept of aggro specifically refers to AI routines choosing targets based on numerical values attached to player actions, the "taunt" mechanic (which is very different from Marking), and the general principle that it is inherently bad for wizards or healers to exceed a certain rate of drawing aggro (i.e., it specifically punishes reckless use of magic). 4E D&D shares none of these qualities.The basic problem of "defending the squishies" is another thing that is inherent to class-based character design. So long as there are both classes that can take a lot of damage and classes that can't take a lot of damage fighting alongside each other, the question of "how do we get the enemies to attack the guys that are tougher, rather than the fragile guys" will come up. Aggro is one solution to that. Many other videogames use "team formation" systems (the "front row" and "back row" idea) or active defense in which characters move to take hits for their allies. Other games use complex system that let you slow down enemy turn order and cancel their attacks with skilled timing. Others simply try to minimize squishiness and keep healing widely available. Yet more simply give squishy character much greater range than others, so they never enter the danger zone, and emphasize pure tactical positioning. The Marking mechanic is a revolutionary solution to this problem that is both unique to 4E and completely new to gaming.Just to emphasize an earlier point of mine, I would like to point out that you are specifically trying to say that 4E has a "MMORPG/World of Warcraft" vibe, not a "videogame vibe". Not everyone thinks about MMORPGs when they think about videogames. Particularly since the things you argue about (roles and aggro) are completely alien to countless videogames that I can name. Almost every console RPG, for example. This is particularly problematic since about half of the time, someone complaining about the "videogame feel" is actually complaining about a perceived resemblance to console RPGs, which don't share the aggro or role concepts.</blockquote>

Verification