>>93251853
idk? depends on the game, what it's about, and what it's trying to.
As I understand them RPG's are about trying to simulate fictional reality with verisimilitude, so probably "No". Aggro doesn't really model anything with a basis in reality. NPC's and PC in the fictional world are free to choose their actions as they wish, Aggro comes off as pseudo-mind control to me, so unless a wizard is casting a spell called "you want to kill the guy i'm pointing at," I don't think it fits.
Wargames I'm not sure about (I don't play them). If you're a wargamer trying to simulate a fictional reality (like historical wargamers do I THINK) then probably not for the same reason as rpgs.
If you're playing wargames that aren't really about the fictional reality and are entirely focused on mechanical depth and skill, then yea I can see them having a place.
As for board games, I can conceive of a chess piece that forces the opponent to take it if they can (call it The Scout or something), so I'm sure aggro is a mechanic that can work in a board game built for it.

Why do you care anyway? If this is for a project you're working on then ask in the game dev thread >>93219358, you're much more likely to get people who'll actually engage with your thread (also post your shit if this is for a project).

>>93252051
He's posting a plausibly deniable sentence he doesn't care about so he can ragebait about /pol/shit. He doesn't want to post in a relevant thread because that might limit the amount of people he wants to come here and shitpost.