Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[KidSnide]

Inspiration as part of the core? Wow, bold move there. Given that this mechanic is a 100% new thing for D&D, I would have expected them to put it in a module.

I don't recall the article specifying where this mechanic would lie. I imagine it would be in the standard version (AD&D style) but not the core (basic D&D style) because backgrounds are one of the elements that enter the game in the core to standard transition.

Obviously, it would be pretty easy to ignore/remove these rules if you don't like them.

-KS

 

[Dausuul]

I don't recall the article specifying where this mechanic would lie. I imagine it would be in the standard version (AD&D style) but not the core (basic D&D style) because backgrounds are one of the elements that enter the game in the core to standard transition.

It's in the very last sentence of the article: "By baking inspiration into the core of the game, we have the basic structure needed to provide for more in-depth rules modules."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I like the idea of the tables. I've used similar tables in the past.

But I don't like the inspiration rule. My tactically-minded players see stuff like this as another benefit to fish for. And they don't do it by "roleplaying better," they break what little immersion we have and try to cajole and wheedle their way into the benefit.

Good roleplay to me has it's own rewards. And I'm not just talking about satisfaction of a job well done. I'm referring to the in-game consequences of good or bad roleplaying.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

The way he describes it, it sounds like you'd be giving inspiration to players who talk in a silly voice, which would just penalize people who don't. Fate points only really make sense to me as a reward for when you do something you wouldn't normally do (and then using them in a later scene--I don't understand how getting a bonus in the same scene would help).

I didn't get the impression that it had anything to do with funny voices. It seems mostly left up to the DM, so I suppose that individuals could chose to use it like that, but I think you could just as easily interpret what he wrote to reward PCs for doing things they normal wouldn't, like you suggest.

 

[the Jester]

The way he describes it, it sounds like you'd be giving inspiration to players who talk in a silly voice, which would just penalize people who don't. Fate points only really make sense to me as a reward for when you do something you wouldn't normally do (and then using them in a later scene--I don't understand how getting a bonus in the same scene would help).

First off, I wish we could drop the assertion that giving out a bonus is the same thing as giving a penalty to the other guys. I disagree with the idea; if all else is equal, a bonus for a single character doesn't penalize everyone else unless the math changes to accommodate that bonus. And I don't see that.

It sounds like it would be easy to ignore the inspiration system entirely if you don't like it. Personally, I think it sounds great.

Besides, shouldn't a roleplaying game encourage and reward roleplaying?

 

[Sadrik]

Sounds good. The only thing I worry about with the tables is how campaign specific will they be written. If you have your own campaign setting will these be generically enough written to accommodate? For instance when it says patron noble for guild membership, an 'or' government official 'or' wealthy investor... not hard to do, but can positively impact the utility of these tables greatly... Another approach to them which I would approve of is developing these tables with a very specific campaign setting in mind, then publish these tables in future campaign setting books. This would be really cool, planescape, spelljammer, ravenloft, I can envision quite different background tables for each of those...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Inspiration as part of the core? Wow, bold move there. Given that this mechanic is a 100% new thing for D&D, I would have expected them to put it in a module.

Once again... this comes down to the question of "What is 'core'?" What does 'core' mean? Does it mean it's a rules system that the game cannot function without (like ability scores for example where you can't just remove them in their entirely and have the game still work)... or does 'core' just mean rules systems that will be listed as part of the main body of the game and how it's presented, but don't have to actually be used if you don't want to.

Backgrounds will be in the 'core game' it sounds like. When the book presents the list to go through to create your character... Backgrounds will be included in that list, and its chapter will probably fall right after the Race and Class chapters in the book. But if a DM chooses NOT to use Backgrounds... can the game still function? From the sounds of things... sure. It's not a "module" per se, because "modules" seem to be options that either modify/change the basic rule system (and will probably be sidebars to those rules systems in the book), or they will be complete add-ons that will show up in different parts of the book (or different books altogether) and which most tables are expected to probably not use.

So Backgrounds seem to be part of the "core of the game"... but the rules are not required to use for the game to still function. Inspiration sounds as though it is the same sort of thing. It's not going to be a small rule system or modification buried within the DM's Guide that a DM can choose to add if he wants... it's going to have a place in the line-up of chapters that WotC believes to be in the typical D&D game (if we have to, we'll use the dreaded term "default" here.)

Your standard, default D&D game if you follow the character creation design parameters down the line with no changes will have players determining bonds, ideals, flaws, and the key problem/question of their character (in addition to rolling for ability scores, and then choosing race, class, sub-class, background, and equipment). But if a DM doesn't want to use those things... he can probably pluck them out without any problem and it won't impact how the game works on a mechanical level whatsoever.

It's not "core" as defined as a primary game function that is required for the mechanics to work on the whole... it's "core" as defined as one of the subsystems that will be listed as part of the default series of systems that your unmodified game will have you use. But which is easily removeable if you so choose.

 

[Dausuul]

Once again... this comes down to the question of "What is 'core'?" What does 'core' mean? Does it mean it's a rules system that the game cannot function without (like ability scores for example where you can't just remove them in their entirely and have the game still work)... or does 'core' just mean rules systems that will be listed as part of the main body of the game and how it's presented, but don't have to actually be used if you don't want to.

Based on context ("By baking inspiration into the core... we have the structure for more in-depth rules modules"), I think it's pretty clear that Mearls is talking about the former. That's what "baked in" means; a "baked in" mechanic is one that is tightly integrated with the ruleset and can't easily be removed. There will be more complex optional systems around inspiration, but inspiration itself will not be optional.

 

[Klaus]

Although in "core", the inspiration rule described says the DM chooses when to hand out the award. Some DMs might choose "never", and that is perfectly fine.

 

[sheadunne]

Pass. I'm usually not interested in things like this unless they're initiated by the player(s). As a DM I have too many others things to concern myself with. Unless there's a well thought out rubrics for evaluation, bias is inevitable and I'll award them based on my preferences (play the way I want you to), and not on player preference (the way any individual player wants to play). I never think these things add much to the game experience for me (on either side of the table).

Now a mechanic that players can initiate, tap into, and utilize is more to my tastes, but even then, I'm usually more conservative in my implementation of them (such as fate, hero, or action points).

Even when I used XP for roleplaying I did it on a group bases. The group determined likes/dislikes from the previous session and each like/dislike generated a number of random rolls which were totaled and given to all players at the table.