Aggro Management is older than MMOs

I had a conversation recently where someone was complaining about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition being basically an MMO.

This is a common complaint.

A lot of people point to the way the powers are set up and start saying "that's exactly like what MMOs do". I've always returned that comment with the reminder that MMOs were copied from tabletop RPGs and mostly use the same systems of event resolution, health tracking and character advancement and, thus, that any development that works on those elements will also be fitting to a tabletop RPG.

Another main argument is that 4th edition doesn't allow you to roleplay, to which I just cry "bull", because there is no way to systemize roleplay and, thus, no system can really limit roleplay. Especially not when one of the accepted golden rules of tabletopping is "if you don't like a rule: drop it or make a different one." Roleplaying is entirely the responsibility of the players not the system.

My own complaint about 4th edition is that it virtually requires a detailed map in order to play out combat. It is very much a miniatures oriented game. While it is easy to replace minis with dice or cardboard cutouts, you still need the map. The result is that, while fun to play, I have less fun in running it. It requires a lot more prep than other games where I can use cinematic locations and distances fairly easily and not be put to the trouble of drawing an actual map.

But the complaint from this person was "aggro". He claimed that prior versions of D&D did not have aggro and that such a concept was entirely created by the massive multiplayer online roleplaying games. He couldn't understand why, to use his example, a lich would have to attack a fighter instead of a mage or striker. After all this is someone powerful enough and smart enough to become a lich, which implies a hefty degree of intelligence, so certainly they should recognize that the fighter isn't their main threat.

Aggro, for those that don't know, is a term used by MMO coders and gamers to describe how the computerized enemies choose who they will attack out of the players. Different player action generates differing level of aggro with the computer sending the enemy to attack the player that the enemy has the most aggro toward. This behavior coding is meant to replace the gamemaster who would usually decide how a particular enemy would react. Aggro management is an important part of such online gaming and characters designed to attract aggro basically have the job of making sure bad guys don't attack their friends.

4th edition Defender types (Fighters, Paladins, Spellswords, Wardens, etc) have some explicit aggro management abilities in the form of "Marks". The way a mark works is that the defender places it on an enemy. For as long as the mark lasts, that enemy will have penalties of varying sorts applied if they attack anybody other than the Defender that placed the mark. For example, if a marked enemy attacks anyone other the Fighter who marked him, then he receives a -2 to attack and the Fighter in question gets to make a free attack on them (if they're in reach according to the map). Other defenders have other situations, such as the Paladin, which can do a very small amount of damage if their mark attacks someone other than them.

The complaint I've heard is that this mechanic is "too meta". For those not in the gaming community, they mean "meta-gaming" which is basically making your decisions based on what the way the rules work rather than on what a character with your story and background.

"Normal" decision-making process: I'll move around and flank the enemy because that is good tactics.

"Metagaming": I get plus 2 to hit and sneak attack if I flank, so I'll flank.

The first method is choosing based on "what would my character do" while the second is based on "what gives me the biggest mechanical benefit"

Metagaming is basically acting on out of character knowledge. Things the player knows but which the character has no reason to know. This can be very damaging to a game.

That is a fairly mild example because it results in the character making the same decision either way. More obvious forms of metagaming are as follows:

**********************

The character decides to get a torch because the rules say trolls can only die if you burn them. This is despite the fact that his character has never seen a troll before and they are not common in the world setting.

The character trades in the story-important sword of his ancestors for a nameless magical sword that gives better bonuses.

The character decides to attack an NPC because they have a goatee and "this GM always makes people with goatee's evil".

***********************

Apparently the 4th edition marks are metagaming because they force the enemy to behave in a way that some would consider unnatural for that enemy's personality and motivation.

That said, while the term is new, aggro management certainly is not.

The oldest mechanism for aggro control was a combination of features that were party of the basic classes of D&D. The primary method was occupation attacks and these go as far back as 2nd edition.

If possible, seek out and find the D&D classic Gold Box games. Simple little roleplaying games written in the 1980s with highly simple graphics. These are the precursors to Baldur's Gate and the like. The basic mechanics of these games are identical to the basic mechanics of 2nd edition AD&D. The aggro management tool here were opportunity attacks.
When you got into a battle, say with some goblins, the enemies would come charging across the screen (such as they could with their graphics) and attack whoever they were targetted against. Assume that they come running up to the fighter on the shortest path towards the wizard in the back of the group. However, if they passed near a fighter or other melee type, then that character got a free attack against them.

The explanation for this was that in passing by a melee armed character, the enemy involved was leaving themselves vulnerable to attack, therefore, the character got a free attack on the enemy. Originally, in 2nd Edition, there seemed to be unlimited numbers of these (one per enemy, though). In third edition, they limited the number of opportunity attacks a player could get down to one, but made feats that allowed them to gain further of those.

The standard method to do aggro control was to place the fighter types up front in such away that enemies would have to get past them to attack the back ranks. The GM, knowing what would happen if his goblins simply rushed past, would mostly have the enemies stop in the first threatened area around the fighter and attack him there in order to wear him down and get to the wizards. Otherwise, they'd try to take a long way around to get to the wizards, rogues, clerics and such. Or, finally, they could use ranged weapons.

Aside from the third of these, the GM is basically metagaming because he knows that his goblins will most likely die by the rules if he charges them past the fighters. You can say that the goblins would know that the fighter is too dangerous to run past and that's why they stop, and that works, but you can make similar workarounds in logical for other such decisions.

Also, as to the ranged weapons, enemies with ranged weapons are prone to opportunity attack if a character armed for hand-to-hand is right next to them. The answer to this is for the fighter types to move up so that they are right next to the ranged enemies. This is basically an extension of the basic aggro management philosophy that is "stand next to the enemy or stand where the enemy has to go past you." Basically, you require the enemies to have to deal with you first.

Finally, while the goblins would usually be stopped as soon as they can engage the fighter (because to go further is to invite attack), the GM could sometimes choose to simply having them charge past regardless, in the hopes that some will get past. Or, as soon as a mob builds up around the front line, the goblins HAVE to run around and thus avoid the threat of opportunity attacks.

Marking is simply an extension of the D&D philosophy of aggro management by threat of force. Of course, the difference here is that it is in the rules that all beings know the effects of any powers effects they are under. As such, that marked lich knows that if he attacks someone other than the fighter, or uses an area effect spell that does not include the fighter, then he gets a -2 to hit and invites an attack.

This does not force the lich to attack the fighter. In all honesty, a high level lich will not likely worry too much about a -2 to attack or a single attack against them and they will have spells that can be very effective in one action, thus not requiring them to suffer from the mark repetitively unless they desire it. The choice is not taken away from the lich, it is simply given information about the consequences of any choice.

Also, these are not very hard to rationalize in roleplaying. A fighter can only mark people that he has already attacked. As such, a fighter that has marked someone is probably watching them and ready to strike again in a clearly threatening pose that would tell most people "if I make the wrong move, he hits me." The marks of the other Defenders are psionic or magical in origin and read like targetted curses for the most part. At least one such mark reacts to protect the target if triggered rather than by attacking the enemy.

All in all, marking is simply a second form of opportunity attack available only to defenders.

I have to say that there isn't much like that in any MMO. MMO aggro works by numbers, one character might have more threat because of actions taken, but Tank-type characters generally have threat multipliers that make their actions more threatening than they otherwise would be.

The Mark mechanic is nothing like that.

For an active comparison:

In one MMO, say a damage-dealer type hits an enemy for 100 damage and therefore generates 100 threat. The tanker type then hits the same enemy for 50 damage, but his threat is multiplied by, say 4, and thus he generates 200 threat. The enemy then decides to attack the tanker despite the lower damage dealt because the numbers it is fed say the tanker is the priority target.

There is no active, human GM controlling the enemies in MMOs so such unnatural behavior controls are necessary.

The D&D 4E marking system, on the other hand, basically is the equivalent of "Hey, you, yeah, you, I've got my eye on you. Yeah, just give me chance. Go for it!" Since the enemies are not run by computers, there's no number that makes the lich say "I have to attack the fighter even though the wizard is about to complete the spell that will destroy my soul jar." The lich is perfectly free to ignore the mark and attack the wizard, however, it makes perfect sense that a warrior ready to pounce will interfere in any spellcasting or even melee attacks from the lich when he makes his provoked attack and the lich will be risking having his action miss. However, it may be that he can't afford not to attack.

In all reality, the 4E marking system wouldn't work for an MMO. You would still need to determine aggro so that the system had a way to make decisions for enemies without a human GM to do that. Possibly, you could have aggro managed separately and this would simply add more to the aggro measurement, but that would still mean that other actions might level a higher amount of aggro and thus convince the enemy to make the risk for the opportunity attack and other associated penalties of the mark they're under.

As to the common "taunts" in MMOs those are also not unique or original to MMOs.

First edition Champions, the first setting for the HERO system rules, had Presence attacks. Presence attacks were used to inspire allies and demoralize enemies among other things. Essentially anything emotionally based that was sudden and imposing. The levels by which the presence attack worked indicated how likely the affected targets would be to follow along with what was said and thus provide guidelines for the GM to deciding actions. Only really high rolls demanded that the targets followed the instructions given (we referred to this as "putty-ing" the enemies, since they were now like putty). For added benefit, Presence attacks are essentially a free action.

This is completely analogous to the "Taunt" powers common to MMOs for aggro management, and Champions 1st Ed came out in the early 80s at first. Well before the first MMOs.

For that matter, 1st edition AD&D had the Dragonlance setting and Kender which had an insult ability that enabled them to force an opponent to come charging blindly at them regardless of dangers. It was designed to make the target ignore opportunity attacks.

Aggro management has been a basic part of roleplaying strategy for a LONG time. It only got named as such when MMOs needed an easy way to refer to the necessary mathematics associated with behavior AIs choosing targets.

Excellent points all around - I've used the same arguments myself. Honestly, I don't see how 4th is like an MMO other than labeling the classes with roles. I guess that's enough, but the role description for MMOs was itself taken from tabletop games, so maybe not.

I'm happy with the mark system of 4e because without it you're just doing what's always been done - defending is all about position (so not using a map in previous editions was doing players of front line melee characters trying to protect their squishies an injustice. Though of course after level 7 the only real 'squishy' class was thief, and they've always been the Yamcha's of D&D so whatever: If the thief died you could replace it with a real class next session.)

Only the fighter mark presses the idiot button on monster intellect. Paladins effectively put a prayer on you that burns you if you ignore them. Wardens ensnare you with primal power. Swordmages cast a spell on you. Battleminds harass you with psychic powers.

The fighter throws a rock at you. (It was a big rock) One of these things is much less worthy of a -2 to hit than the others.

4e stuff aside aggro management has existed for far, far longer than even RPGs.

Take Chess, for example: If you're using your Queen aggressively expect your opponent to spend far more effort trying to kill it than if you leave it hanging back defensively, ready to move in any direction to thwart a check.

Not much to add, but I found this to be a pretty good read. I'll be linking some of my friends to this thread.

My tanks are not Kender!

Oh. But you..uh..dropped this.
I was holding it for you!

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

Aggro management is even older than RPG's. A lot of the basic ideas of warfare are based on this idea.

An acceptible tactic from the time of Sun Tzu onward is to have a strong force hold a certain spot on the landscape that your enemy must move through. Lets say a Heavy Infantry unit from the middle ages or, perhaps, a few hundred Spartans, or maybe a modern Tank Unit.

Now, once the enemy has been tied down trying to deal with this problem, your more mobile units, (cavalry in all of its forms), and your fire support units (archers and the like) are free to chew the enemy up.

Sound familiar?

In DnD that would go something like:

1. Fighter stands in front of the horde of monsters and looks like a big, juicy, target.

2. Thieves (Rogues) skirt the edges of the fight and look for targets of opportunity.

3. Wizards and Archers rain damage down from a ways back.

4. profit.

RPG's didn't invent aggro management, it came along with the RPG's roots...

Wargaming.

System can absolutely interfere with roleplaying. If it is too complex or, say, involves a bunch of fiddly board-game-y bits and bobs, it can draw focus aggro away from roleplaying. Which has been my experience with 4th Ed, as well as space combat in whatever version of Traveller it was I once played.

Also, I don't recall the existence of this run-by attack in the 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

I read through this whole thing. I don't particularly care for DnD or the arguments about it. I just think it would be interesting trivia that may benefit me in some way in the future. Still an interesting read.

I don't think aggro management itself is the problem. The problem is how it's been MMO-ized. Instead of giving a fighter a 'mark' power that allows them to block an enemy, why not just say that a fighter can put their body and their shield between the evil Lich and the party's cleric? If the Lich still wants to attack give it minuses based on a large obstable (the fighter) being in the way.

And if the 'mark' can be imagined as something as simple as combat tactics, then why limit the number of times the fighter can use it? The 'daily' and 'encounter' power limits are really what make 4th ed D&D like an MMO. In real life, fighting skills do not have recharge times. You should be able to use any of your skills at any time. Obviously this isn't true for magical abilities, but there is no excuse for not letting a fighter try a power attack, a charge, or a block only once per day. Such limits break immersion and make it feel like a computer game.

If mystical efforts can be arbitrarily limited, why not physical?

The Powers system in 4E doesn't really bother me, though I think some powers are restricted inappropriately.

Now I'm not sure what this block a team mate attack is as I haven't really played any fighters. Other than Daily powers all of your abilities are available to you for every fight. At Wills are always available, Encounters are used once an Encounter( 5 mins game time) and reset after a short rest. So I'm not seeing huge restrictions on what you can use that would cause the kind of outrage I'm seeing here.

The idea behind the powers is to give the classes something to do besides I attack it.

In 3.0/3.5 if you were a fighter you made a full attack, that was it. Granted Fighters were very good at attacking but overall they didn't have any mechanically interesting ways to attack. Then Tome of Battle came out and everyone was like "YES MELEE CASTERS ARE AWESOME!!!!11!!!!!" Toem of battle introduced several Melee focused characters with a full contingent of spell like effects(and in some cases out right spells) similar to the crazy stuff you would see in over the top Martial Arts movies (Kung Fu Hustle,The One,Shaolin Soccer) and various video games (Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, Street Fighter,Mortal Kombat). It hit a sweet spot of concept/balance/attainability that wasn't realistically achievable using all the other splat books in 3.5 except using the gestalt Character variant, and even then a Gestalt was stretching what ToB could do easily.

4E tried to build off of Tome of Battle and does a decent job of giving every class interesting things to do, but that came at the cost of gutting multiclass options. With the Splat books that took time to come out I'd say through the power system and additional classes almost any concept can be made now.