|
Originally Posted by WotC_Mearls
Aggro in D&D is a big issue. In early drafts, there were much more explicit rules for it, where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe. All that stuff is gone.First, it isn't fun playing the guy whose job it is to get beaten up. In early playtests, the fighter soaked up all the attacks and then.... soaked up some more attacks. It was the cleric problem, but even worse. At least the cleric doesn't take damage for spending all his spells healing other people. So, those mechanics went right out the window.
Second, it restricts DMs needlessly. We don't want to tell DMs, "You have to do this." It's pretty lame to force DMs to walk through a monster script. It might be interesting for a specific monster (the clockwork knight programmed with three specific routines) or encounter (the zombies in the temple of Orcus attack good clerics above all other targets), but not as a core rule.
Third, we want playing a fighter or similar class to be fun, and we think we have mechanics that make it fun to sit in front of the party and hold back the monsters while beating on their asses.
The paladin does resemble the knight, but (we hope) that the paladin's use of the knight's toys solves the problem some people had with the knight. Namely, that the knight's compulsion felt like a magical effect, but didn't use magic. In the paladin's case, he's doing something similar with his mastery of divine magic. However, his ability does not say that the monster must attack him. It makes it a better option, but doesn't eliminate other options.
The fighter is just nasty. In design, we figured that people who play fighters do so because they want to kick the crap out of monsters. If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy. We hope that this sort of mechanic leads to good teamwork (the fighter holds down the hill giant) while also speaking to why people play the class (the fighter player gets to have fun beating down the hill giant).
There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D). We want DMs to make NPC fighters and paladins, and it would be really dumb if the DM had to impose a threat or aggro mechanic that dictated who the PCs had to attack.
On one hand I am happy that the designers are testing out a whole range of options for the new game. On the other, I am bit dismayed they thought an aggro model would be good for the game at all. It seems to run so contrary to the philosophy behind a tabletop RPG that even testing the waters strikes me as odd. I am glad they came to the conclusion that such a mechanic would be lame at the very least. It does seem like some aggro-like elements might be introduced to the game though. The question is, will it be more or less than what we already have in 3.5?
For those who don't know what aggro is, it is a mechanic used in many MMORPGs. Essentially monsters will attack a particular character based on certain criteria. Most often in a combat situation this is based on damage and how fast you can dish that damage out. In World of Warcraft warriors deal a great amount of damage but they can be slow about it. They can normally hold a monster but spellcasters risk drawing away the creatures because they can dish out damage faster. Creatures are also drawn to healers when a great deal of healing is being done. In addition to all of this there are special abilities that allow you to draw a creature to you.
This works well in an online environment without GMs. It really is the best way to simulate which characters creatures are going to pay attention to. But in a game that has an arbitrator the idea of using aggro just seems like a huge disconnect.
This works well in an online environment without GMs.
Since late 3E, if not before, there's been a push toward "automating" as many of the DM's responsibilities as possible in the name of speed of play. I'm not the least bit surprised that WotC toyed with aggro mechanics for 4E, although I'm (mildly) gratified they decided against them.
|
|
I did like the points he raised about the knight. I have a knight character in my current Ptolus game and his ability to force someone to attack him is something I have always struggled with.
I also like the idea that the divine challenge paladin ability does not require the creature to attack the paladin. I am sure there will so "punishment" for not doing it but at least, as the DM, I have a choice in that matter.
I guess my thought process when posting this was two-fold. Its good to see they tried some MMO mechanics and steered away from them. I have mixed feelings about it but overall I am happy with how the post talks about the nature of 4e.
Basically what WotC is trying to say is if D&D4 doesn't resemble WoW it won't be from lack of trying.
Is that fair?
Basically what WotC is trying to say is if D&D4 doesn't resemble WoW it won't be from lack of trying.
Is that fair?
Pretty much.
|
I think it suggests they are really trying to push the game towards those that have never played before by making it as "user-friendly" as possible. Of course a lot of times "user-friendly" means dumbed down.
Personally I think they are making a mistake about both their consumer base and product. Wargamers tend to like rules and options hand in hand. Needlessly limiting options is IMO almost always a losing proposition in a roleplaying game. And it seems to me that the way DnD has always grown and still will grow best is by word of mouth and current players training up new players.
I think it suggests they are really trying to push the game towards those that have never played before by making it as "user-friendly" as possible. Of course a lot of times "user-friendly" means dumbed down.
Personally I think they are making a mistake about both their consumer base and product. Wargamers tend to like rules and options hand in hand. Needlessly limiting options is IMO almost always a losing proposition in a roleplaying game. And it seems to me that the way DnD has always grown and still will grow best is by word of mouth and current players training up new players.
Just as a counterpoint real quick, WoTC designers have mentioned multiple times that there are actually more decisions to make now with your characters . . .so maybe they are not limiting options, but trying to make those options not so arcane (no pun intended). That is my hope anyways.
There seems to be a lot of MMO stuff being ported in with 4e. I heard they've even been working with an idea of creating leveled "zones" as a game mechanic. So you wander into the wrong forest or set of hills and now the monsters are super huge and powerful--but then you head back down into the grassy field below and then it's back to wolves and dire chipmunks. *sigh*
I love the fact that the reason PC classes can't compel aggro on monsters has nothing to do with the idea that it's a dumb ability taken straight from a video game--it's that *aghast horror* someone could then use it on the PCs!
Lame lame lame.
This seems like alot of book keeping.
Ok the fighter has done 5 this round 7 next 6 next 8 next. The cleric has healed 10 dealt 5 damage then another 3. The rogue has 18 then 4 then 5 then 4. The wizard has done 15 then 5 then 4.
So the monster stops attacking the fighter up front and runs to...wait one secound...hey does healing count more...umm wait do you have wounding on your dagger? F*&K...screw it he's attacking the fighter again.
Fizz
There seems to be a lot of MMO stuff being ported in with 4e. I heard they've even been working with an idea of creating leveled "zones" as a game mechanic. So you wander into the wrong forest or set of hills and now the monsters are super huge and powerful--but then you head back down into the grassy field below and then it's back to wolves and dire chipmunks. *sigh*
I really, really hope they don't do anything like that and it's just a rumor. It seems so unbelievably pointless. Every tree, rock, shrub, monster, villager and town on the map is there because the DM put it there. Every random encounter chart can be fudged in any direction because the DM wants to. This whole "zones" mentality from MMORPGs is completely pointless if you're playing with a human dungeon master, someone that can make adaptive decisions based on their specific party. I'm all for making the game more streamlined, but that kind of thing (along with an "aggro" model) takes the focus from making the DMs job a little easier and improving the pace of the game to automating the whole thing so the DM is just a spectator.
I am, however, looking forward to the new color coding rule that allows you to tell how powerful monsters and characters are at a glance, based on what color their name appears in over their heads.
I did like the points he raised about the knight. I have a knight character in my current Ptolus game and his ability to force someone to attack him is something I have always struggled with.
Hmm, I have a knight character in my current game as well, and like this ability. The players group developed their tactic based on that: The knight in front taking the damage, the cleric as healer and support melee fighter and the third PC is an archer (actually a fighter with one level of ranger), making most of his point blank feats and what have you. I see the knights ability more as "showing the enemy the nasty finger" so they concentrate their attacks on him.
But in general, I agree: an Aggro mechanic has no place in D&D or any P&P RPG.
Stefan
I am, however, looking forward to the new color coding rule that allows you to tell how powerful monsters and characters are at a glance, based on what color their name appears in over their heads.
Heh! That's pretty funny. It was supposed to be funny, right? *worried look*
I really, really hope they don't do anything like that and it's just a rumor. It seems so unbelievably pointless. Every tree, rock, shrub, monster, villager and town on the map is there because the DM put it there. Every random encounter chart can be fudged in any direction because the DM wants to. This whole "zones" mentality from MMORPGs is completely pointless if you're playing with a human dungeon master, someone that can make adaptive decisions based on their specific party. I'm all for making the game more streamlined, but that kind of thing (along with an "aggro" model) takes the focus from making the DMs job a little easier and improving the pace of the game to automating the whole thing so the DM is just a spectator.
I am, however, looking forward to the new color coding rule that allows you to tell how powerful monsters and characters are at a glance, based on what color their name appears in over their heads.
Listen to the podcast on monsters . . . there are a few places where they mention an area of a particular "level" and how planar areas should be of at least X level.
There seems to be a lot of MMO stuff being ported in with 4e. I heard they've even been working with an idea of creating leveled "zones" as a game mechanic. So you wander into the wrong forest or set of hills and now the monsters are super huge and powerful--but then you head back down into the grassy field below and then it's back to wolves and dire chipmunks. *sigh*
I really, really hope they don't do anything like that and it's just a rumor. It seems so unbelievably pointless. Every tree, rock, shrub, monster, villager and town on the map is there because the DM put it there. Every random encounter chart can be fudged in any direction because the DM wants to. This whole "zones" mentality from MMORPGs is completely pointless if you're playing with a human dungeon master, someone that can make adaptive decisions based on their specific party. I'm all for making the game more streamlined, but that kind of thing (along with an "aggro" model) takes the focus from making the DMs job a little easier and improving the pace of the game to automating the whole thing so the DM is just a spectator.
I haven't run a game in years, but I used to use a zones concept. Closer to town and inhabited areas tended to have lower level encounters, true wilderness higher level, and if you were on the trade route through the Grey Mountains everyone new you better d__n well stay on the road and move fast. There were just some places that first level characters shouldn't be. That said, I agree that incorporating it into the rules would be sub-optimal.
No farming in 4e!!!
does that include gold farming?
of course there's no famring what with points of light, how could anyone survive to grow stuff int he dark evil between them??
ooh aggro...
;)
I haven't run a game in years, but I used to use a zones concept. Closer to town and inhabited areas tended to have lower level encounters, true wilderness higher level, and if you were on the trade route through the Grey Mountains everyone new you better d__n well stay on the road and move fast. There were just some places that first level characters shouldn't be.
Yeah, but you would not need any rules for it besides common sense. Of course, the road between two major towns will be relatively safe, while uncharted wilderness will be relatively dangerous - but you need no rules to have this in effect. This sounds to me that someone with no clue about the game told the designers "make it more like WoW". Just considering the idea is a foolish waste of time IMO.
Stefan
|
|
I do not like the "areas have a level" concept.
That was one of the sticks used to beat on Planescape, that the outer planes were only supposed to be for high level play, and that it was stupid to try and have low level PCs running around out there doing stuff. Unfortunately the writers did not pay attention to that, and made really great low level Planescape adventures.
I guess we are supposed to go backwards to accommodate areas with levels, just like computer games have.
Bleah.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One of the elements that has been trumpeted for 4e is that the environment will play a very active roll in the game - so much so that it will be factored in to the challenge level of a given encounter.
Viewed through this lense, encounter zones might make more sense than in 3e. The combination of environmental hazards and particular monsters could affect the challenge level so much that it makes sense to break combat encounters by environment zones.
So are you talking about like a +1 ECL for swamps and a +8 ECL for islands of rock amid flowing lava? That sort of thing?
Really the idea I got was that it was going to be like a bullseye around the "adventure area" so the further from any particular Point of Light you got, the progressively scarier and more devastating the encounters became--to encourage characters to stay inside the fog of war until they were high enough level to journey to the next "adventure area".
You know actually I think the colored name thing could work though. See you print the Monster Manual entries with gray font for first tier enemies, then blue, yellow, orange, red and purple for epic level enemies. That way if you're a DM looking for an appropriate challenge for your group you just skim through until you find entries listed in the appropriate colored font. That way it could be utterly mortifying and useful at the same time!
Makes me a little sad, because lets face it " Makeing monsters attack based on criteria" is something that happens anyway. I really think a little bit more attention to this would be conducive to quick fun games.
Yeah. But rulerizing it is just lame. New DMs won't learn to think like a monster. Old DMs are going to forget at some point causing a game-interupting rules-lawyering harangue. This is not something that'll streamline a game or make it play quicker.
You could play solo though. Like those old LoneWolf books./magna kai mindbolt
|
Makes me a little sad, because lets face it " Makeing monsters attack based on criteria" is something that happens anyway. I really think a little bit more attention to this would be conducive to quick fun games.
I honestly have to ask how many of the detractors of aggro models have never seen the High AC and/or High Dmg Guy Intimidating/Bluffing/Lying/and Insulting in an attempt to get the monster to come to him as apposed to the other way arround. OMG Aggro manipulation WOW SUXORS
Hopefully this means that they have moved fighters from meatsheilds to groundpounders of extreme hurtfulness.
Logos
Roleplaying is better than automation. People are decrying the automation, not the idea of players attempting to lure an enemy into a specific confrontation.
It didn't pass playtesting anyway, I'm just surprised it got that far.
Hey maybe you can get XP when you enter a new area, wouldn't that be great?
Hey maybe you can get XP when you enter a new area, wouldn't that be great?
While you get XP for defeating monsters you won't get any "quest XP" until you return to talk to the Innkeeper.
what this tells me is that they are 5 months out from releasing 4e and they still don't have basic mechanics worked out.
Sounds like they won't make their scheduled release date or if they do the rules will likely have so many problems that 4.5 won't be far behind.
Naw, they've expressly stated that there will be no 4.5.
Bear in mind that this is from the same guys that spent the last two years swearing they weren't working on 4.0.
For those who object to the idea of zones because it's too video-gamy, bear also in mind that video games got it from early D&D--the level of the dungeon was equal to the challenge level, so the deeper you got, the tougher the monsters were. That's why earlier versions of the game had the dwarven ability to detect sloping corridors... Gygax wanted to throw a surprisingly tough encounter at his players so, rather than just having tougher monsters behind the door, he had the party travel a couple levels deeper into the dungeon without realizing it.
For those who object to the idea of zones because it's too video-gamy, bear also in mind that video games got it from early D&D--the level of the dungeon was equal to the challenge level, so the deeper you got, the tougher the monsters were.
That's a bit of a stretch for me. Pac-Man had harder levels the higher you got by increasing the ghosts' speed and decreasing times for powerdots. Even Ping-Pong sped up if you beat the computer and got to the "advanced" stage. That was to test more for reflexes than endurance.
I'll buy that the perception of increased difficulty as the game progresses is a natural and intuitive design. I'm not thinking that it was so original an idea that it can get ripped off of somewhere.
Since the news of an aggro effect in 4e is what really broke my spirit and turned me anti-4th, this is great news and puts me right back on the fence.
If they announced that they were keying back the anime-style superpowers that they like to boast about in their playtest reviews, I might wind up looking forward to 4th edition after all.
For those who object to the idea of zones because it's too video-gamy, bear also in mind that video games got it from early D&D--the level of the dungeon was equal to the challenge level, so the deeper you got, the tougher the monsters were.
Yeah, but there's a difference between subtle level differencing from blatant zones. I'll never play an edition of any game that has zones. Blech!
|
|
For those who object to the idea of zones because it's too video-gamy, bear also in mind that video games got it from early D&D--the level of the dungeon was equal to the challenge level, so the deeper you got, the tougher the monsters were. That's why earlier versions of the game had the dwarven ability to detect sloping corridors... Gygax wanted to throw a surprisingly tough encounter at his players so, rather than just having tougher monsters behind the door, he had the party travel a couple levels deeper into the dungeon without realizing it.
Yes, true. But only superficially. You may have inadvertently fallen into a different dungeon level (zone) but the truth was that in early D&D you could handle it and fight your back to another level (zone).
The concept of "Zones" isn't related to "here the monsters are of level "x-y". It's actually related to "Here the monsters are of an appropriate challenge to characters of level x-y". Its subtle but it does have some differences.
The problem with zones is this idea of "appropriate challenges". You end up with creatures you simply cannot kill, or creatures that (as my players put it) you are "immune" to. In the original editions, Kobolds may have been non-challenges to high level characters (low teens) but they COULD damage them, and with enough of them and 'smart' tactics, you could even kill a PC. Now High level PCs are "immune" to kobolds. Thats sad. On the other side, in old D&D you could take 5th level characters and have them face a lich. Sure, the lich could mop the floor with them, but should the players be clever, the could actually kill the lich. It was the old joke: The Lich saying "oh crap, I lost the initiative". Do enough damage in the first round: dead lich.
Zoning imparts balancing, balancing imparts "no go zones", and "no go zones" is simply not fun.
City Adventures defy Zones. My PC lives in the Dock war. Low level I fight muggers and drunk sailors and the occasional city watch. Mid-levels Levels I fight strange Magical Beasts on Board Ships, Tougher Muggers, Sailors, Watchmen, etc. High Levels I face off against eEye Tyrants in the Bay, Wizards and their Magical constructs, etc. The point is I never left the Docks. This is good Design.
If the "Foreign Ward" is Low Level and the "Dock Ward" is mid level, and the "Spire Ward" is high level, then my low level character stays out of spire ward. THIS is what people mean by Video-Gamey.
In a video game, the mechanic is "attack when you get close" and so you have to have seperate zones to prevent lowbies from getting killed non-stop. In D&D you can have Pit Fiends walking down the streets of Sigil right Next to the 1st Level Paladin of He-Who-Slays-Fiends and not worry about the Paladin dieing inadvertently. Of course the Paladin saying "You are under Arrest Balor Breath" may change that in a hurry.
For those who object to the idea of zones because it's too video-gamy, bear also in mind that video games got it from early D&D--the level of the dungeon was equal to the challenge level, so the deeper you got, the tougher the monsters were.Yeah, but there's a difference between subtle level differencing from blatant zones. I'll never play an edition of any game that has zones. Blech!
but... wait, I think we're using different meanings of "zone," or you're joking.
Outside the mountain: Overland zone. Deer, wolves, the occasional ogre.
Inside the mountain: Underground zone. Ropers, cave trolls, black dragon.
That's what I'm thinking of by zones: geographically discrete areas which have measurably different toughnesses of monsters populating them, which has been in the game since 1st edition.
Outside the mountain: Overland zone. Deer, wolves, the occasional ogre.
Inside the mountain: Underground zone. Ropers, cave trolls, black dragon.That's what I'm thinking of by zones: geographically discrete areas which have measurably different toughnesses of monsters populating them, which has been in the game since 1st edition.
I was referring to the concept (actual or farcical? I hope the latter! Heh.) of EQ-like zones, which were loosely implied earlier in the thread. I think I've simply read too many hypothetical posts regarding 4e's potentially video game systems. ;)
As far as having biomes in the game, I'm with ya. They are a part of the dynamic nature of my game world as well, but I try my best to never directly associate creature toughness with biomes unless there's a specific reason to do so, such as White Dragon Pass or The Spriggan Tunnels. Dungeons are the one geographical exception which have always carried the archetype of leveling creatures from the top down, i.e. level 1 has the weakest creatures, which get tougher the deeper down you go.
That doesn't always have to be the case, however. If a dungeon descends several hundred feet and then spreads out laterally over the course of 5 miles in all directions, but never descends deeper than "one level" deep, you would have the possibility of encountering creatures of all strengths within that one level of difficulty within the adventure itself. That's also why the descending dungeon is a cliche, often finding itself stuck in perpetually increasing levels of difficulty by default.
Outdoor adventures are much less likely to suffer such predictable patterning because you're not constrained by walls and finite space, and outdoor biomes have the most diversity when it comes to creatures native to said biomes. You enter a swamp, you can get a pretty good idea what types of creatures will be in there, including those you've never seen before.
|
Just a quick note - the original D&D had areas that were for specific levels.
Every dungeon went up a level the deeper you went. The first level was 1, the second was 2, etc. etc.
As far as aggro goes - when I GM you can get a monster's attention by hitting real hard or hitting it frequently. If the critter has natural racial, class, or religious foes and they are present in the party then that is where they head.
I have played under GMs that ignore this common sense approach and either make it random (thinking that is fair) or they make it personal by tracking down the player they dislike the most.
The AoO is basically and aggro mechanism as it keeps a critter from going right past the meat shields to get to the soft on the outside crunchy on the inside spell flingers.
From the sound of things the monsters in the MM will have some general tactical guidance as a part of their write up to give GMs a plan for how they will act in combat. That should be good enough.
|
WOO HOO
This sounds promising.
Let's assume WotC, in their design brilliance, uses these "zones" or "leveled-up" areas -- and that PCs have to "return to the inn" to get their XP -- and that swamps have CR+2.
And that one year after 4.0 is released 4.5 will come out fixing all the hastily formed mechanics.
Wouldn't this mean that, two years from now, everyone who hasn't yet jumped off the WotC ship will finally do so?
I mean, how much can you take from them before you stop buying?!
Oh, please, if there's any justice, let WotC lose INCREDIBLE gobs of $ for cancelling the mags.
-W. E. Ray
As far as aggro goes - when I GM you can get a monster's attention by hitting real hard or hitting it frequently. If the critter has natural racial, class, or religious foes and they are present in the party then that is where they head.I have played under GMs that ignore this common sense approach and either make it random (thinking that is fair) or they make it personal by tracking down the player they dislike the most.
That´s what it comes down to - common sense. I don´t need no rule for this, it is just - logical, common-sensical or however you want to put it.
Stefan
As far as aggro goes - when I GM you can get a monster's attention by hitting real hard or hitting it frequently. If the critter has natural racial, class, or religious foes and they are present in the party then that is where they head.I have played under GMs that ignore this common sense approach and either make it random (thinking that is fair) or they make it personal by tracking down the player they dislike the most.
That´s what it comes down to - common sense. I don´t need no rule for this, it is just - logical, common-sensical or however you want to put it.
Stefan
And no amount of rules-lawyer fuel and explicite wording will help a team with a commonly senseless DM. Not until they realize what's up and change out the DM.
what this tells me is that they are 5 months out from releasing 4e and they still don't have basic mechanics worked out.
Sounds like they won't make their scheduled release date or if they do the rules will likely have so many problems that 4.5 won't be far behind.
It's been said before that the articles that are getting published now were written 3-6 months ago, so they don't represent the state of the game currently. IMO, this makes them almost worthless, but any information is welcome at this point.
|
|
Basically what WotC is trying to say is if D&D4 doesn't resemble WoW it won't be from lack of trying.
Is that fair?
Indeed.
What I retain from this piece of blog isn't that the aggro model was abandoned. That's that they actually came up some time with the idea of implementing it!
That is NOT a good thing from where I'm sitting.