Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[steeldragons]

Please run, do not walk, away from D&D Next.

Giving mechanical benefits for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is like giving someone who actually bet, extra cards in poker. I guess there just weren't quite enough ways to powergame with character build fiddly bits alone, so this is what we get.

If no one roleplays without this its seriously time to ask yourself: am I gaming with the right people?

This. I am, actually, shocked it took 3 pages of posts before someone noted this.

I read the article and immediately thought, "Great, so D&D's gonna have Fate/Hero/Action/whatever you want to call them, 'Inspiration' points now." It needs this why?

I mean, I get the knee jerk, "Everyone complained that we made the last edition an "All about combat" game...so let's emphasize the role playing of our role-playing game...How that somehow translates to "let's bake in a mechanic about it into the core rules", other than something for the brand/IP that we can say is OURS, baffles me. I mean, I understand it from a business standpoint but despise as a player/fan! If you need to tell people, "This is how you role-play...do it right and we'll give you a COOKIE!" then something is decidedly wrong with RPGs today.

To me this is a poison pill. It could be ignored, but how long will the community of D&D players last until everyone finally relents to a "comes with free dessert" rule? If you are not into story mechanics, their inclusion in core comes off as manipulative and more play style advertising.

Here is the core conceit of D&D and what Next is getting wrong:
In D&D the role you play is your Class. You get XP for each of your Classes for performing Class-related actions. The more XP received, the better the class abilities become. Sure you can get other resources, but those aren't related to your role playing.
To be clear, fictional personality performance is not a required element of D&D. Neither is it explicitly role playing.
-snip-
The idea of role playing may have changed for many, but no game is an RPG because of strung in rules to entice players to act out a fictional persona. We're dealing with two fundamentally different definitions of game play and frankly, baking in the current "storification of all things game" divorces D&D Next from the first 20 years of the hobby.

Yup and yup. This is just more of the same "Other [moderately successful] RPGs are doing it so D&D should do it too" garbage. It aggravates me when its fluffy stuff [i.e. OO! Vampires and Werewolves are popular right now, let's make them PCs!" or "Everyone who knows the X-Men comic loves Psylocke, let's make a class that's the exact same thing!"] but when it's actual mechanical rules/crunch...just unacceptable to my sensibilities.

Before the dogpile, note I said "my sensibilities." I understand that's not everyone's...and that's fine. But long-post-short I think the inspirational-chit mechanic is a bad bad thing...which will reveal itself as such if it is "baked in" to the core rules and not left as an optional "you can do it this way to entice more role-playing from your players."...which in my opinion, it simply won;t, jst be one more piece of crunch to be power-gamed, exploited and abused.

Having it core with the ever-toted easy option of taking it out will simply result in "Well, why should I bother role-playing now? The rules say I should get a cookie! You've told us you won't give us cookies?!? You're a mean/nasty/s**ty DM...You're doing it WRONG!"

 

[pemerton]

taking it out will simply result in "Well, why should I bother role-playing now? The rules say I should get a cookie! You've told us you won't give us cookies?!? You're a mean/nasty/s**ty DM...You're doing it WRONG!"

Is roleplaying it's own reward? If so, then why would players not do it even if they won't get cookies?

 

[JeffB]

After further thought I guess I have mixed feelings here.

On a personal level, I agree with the con arguments. Cookies for the special flowers. No thanks. I can also see some styles of players abusing it by egging on the thespian(s) of the group to provide cookies for them too.

On the other hand....

As a DM of my 13 yo son and some of his buddies, I see the pro argument. They enjoy how I roleplay the monsters, npcs,.etc. but I think they are not confident enough to do so themselves..too shy or maybe even embarassed to roleplay their characters. Some have a hard time talking in character even briefly. A cookie in this type of situation could prove helpful.

I guess It should be a clearly marked as an optional module and DMs can and will summon Rule Zero here. It would also be a good idea to discuss the ramifications of introducing inspiration into your game.

 

[Argyle King]

I think roleplaying mechanics can be great -when done right. Obviously, "done right" from my point of view can (and most likely will) vary greatly.

I have some reservations about tying Inspiration to the Advantage mechanic in 5th Edition. That being said, I don't believe the style of rp mechanics I would personally prefer would fit into 5th Edition very well; I say that because the style of rp mechanics I would prefer seem at odds with the mentality D&D is built upon.

Do I roleplay without mechanics? Yes, I certainly do. The character I'm currently playing is Folgers Valdez, an aspiring coffee farmer who got caught up in a plot involving Darkspawn in a Dragon Age game. However, I still think there can be rp mechanics which work well and which can add to the game; some of the disadvantages I find in GURPS such as honesty and code of honor come to mind. I like those things because they add something tangible to the character of my character. They don't prevent me from taking an action during the game; that is to say having those disadvantages don't completely prevent me from acting against character, but they do make it more difficult during times when I might want to do something such as steal or lie when playing a character who has vowed to be honest and virtuous. I could see a similar idea working with D&D paladins and helping to prevent a lot of DM/player disagreements, and also helping to prevent situations in which a player does something which grossly violates the group's expectations... it's an extreme example, but I was once in a player in a 4E D&D game where another player in the group was playing a Paladin of Pelor who was pretty clearly chaotic evil. Such a character could certainly be interesting and have an intriguing story, but, in that particular case, it was just a way for the player of the paladin to gain the powers he wanted to be able to have and use while on a murdering spree. Though I'll again point out that the mechanics I have in mind don't make it impossible to act against character expectations; that is important because the evolution of a character and turning points which change a character's outlook are things which do happen and I find to be interesting, but they do tend to set a general baseline understanding from which players can have something of a social contract with both the GM and the game and help avoid problems both in-game and out.

All of that being said, I'll again say I have some reservations about Advantage being gained from Inspiration. I'm optimistic, but cautiously so. I hope the rp mechanics don't just turn into another way to game the system.

 

[steeldragons]

Is roleplaying it's own reward? If so, then why would players not do it even if they won't get cookies?

I certainly believe it is. Certain players will, of course...I would imagine, most if not all people I play with will/would role-play anyway. [The fact that needs to be stipulated/specified of people playing a Role-Playing Game makes my head start to hurt a little.]

But I was speaking more hypothetical/across the board. I can certainly see that reaction from many types of players...not the least of which might be newbies who are getting the game and seeing "this is how it should be" in the rule books for the first time. Then they sit down and you, as DM, say 'No inspirational cookies in this game." Response: "What?! How can you do that! It's right here in the rules...not cited as optional [since we already know there will be things/modules which are called out, specifically, as optional]!" THAT is the problem with the proposition, which was not ambiguous as far as I read...that this "inspiration bonus chip" would be woven into the core/basic rules of the game.

Now, that said, thank gods he's said [for now] that you an only have one at a time. That might help...if it sticks. I have no issue with them incorporating the stuff about contacts ["bonds" did he call it?] and coming up with traits and possible flaws that are associated/built in to the alignments...gives the alignments a bit more rounded meaning and actual use, makes explicit what I've always taken alignments to be but many others have always had issues with. That's all great.

But saying "role-play well and I'll give you a bonus" [or optionally, the other players might give you a bonus! *shudder*] is not something the game requires/should require...role-playing well [i.e. to the best of a particular player's ability] has always been the base assumption of the game. No one plays a RPG to RP badly!

As a DM I certainly don't want to be in the position of deciding [and inevitably having to justify] when I give out a cookie! Which will lead to the mechanic being just, as I said above, one more "metagame" piece to be exploited and abused.

I can see the potential pluses of an "Inspiration" additional element of play...the idea is not without merit nor might be beneficial/enjoyable/improving to certain styles of player/games...My objection is that it is being spoken about as "core." Included in the core books as an optional module, and called out as such? No problem. Having it be an assumed/built in part of the basic...and/or "standard" rules of the game? No thank you.

 

[steeldragons]

As an added/additional thought...those citing it as a great idea to apply to classes: Paladin, Bard, Warlord (whether class or specialty/theme), some kind of Leadership skill or what have you, etc...

Yeah! Definitely! Makes sense! Not the "chip" part, per se, but some kind of "inspirational bonus" for themselves or others? Totally see it.

Bards in 1e had a [I think once per day] "Charm" ability. This wasn't necessarily another spell, though I suppose was a magical ability, but it was just something that Bards could do. Make it like that. Once per day per level/Charisma bonus/whatever, you can "Inspire" to give all allies within X radius/feet/blocks +2 to Y/Z/W rolls.

Paladins? Channel Divinity for same...or a warlord-ish "inspiring presence", no channeling required.

So, then, build it into the CLASSES where it makes sense! Not a generic rule mixed into the mortar of the foundation of the game.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Giving mechanical benefits for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is like giving someone who actually bet, extra cards in poker. I guess there just weren't quite enough ways to powergame with character build fiddly bits alone, so this is what we get.

As a DM I certainly don't want to be in the position of deciding [and inevitably having to justify] when I give out a cookie! Which will lead to the mechanic being just, as I said above, one more "metagame" piece to be exploited and abused.

I agree with this, though perhpas not quite as vehemently.

I think having actual mechanics tied to "Roleplaying" could actually serve to divide rather than unite parties.

Every group is made up of people with diverse styles of play, some of which are conducive to being in the spotlight more than others. I know the DM has ultimate adjudication for these "Cookies", but my fear would be that quiter people in a group might get left out.

Also.. Wasn't D+D Next founded on the theory that "Less is More", after the 4E brouhaha? It was supposed to be a "Core Rules Lite", with "Modular Add-Ons."

But, it seems like they're trying to codify rules for virtually everyting in this new Core system, including things that don't need it. Rules for "Downtime"? Rules for "Roleplaying"? Trying to smush 4E and pre-4E versions of the Cosmosolgy together?

Maybe they should focus on the actual Core Rules. (They shouldbn't be discussiing "What do Hit Points mean"? after a YEAR into the Playtest Process. Ditto for "How does Healing work" and "Do we want to include Feats"? That should have been amongst the FIRST things they thought of, rather than focusing on "Legendary Monsters" or worrying about Cosmology, or any of the other relatively minor bits.

 

[Dausuul]

When was that a rule in D&D?

The only edition I can recall that had class-specific XP awards, out of the box, was 2E.

 

[steeldragons]

The only edition I can recall that had class-specific XP awards, out of the box, was 2E.

I'm not sure what you mean by class-specific XP awards. From B/X-BECM to 1e (and apparently) into 2e, each class leveled at different XP values. Some were the same...I think in BECM Elf PCs and MU PCs leveled at the same number...Fighters and Dwarves maybe as well? In 1e, most classes were slightly different. Is that what you mean? I guess the fighter leveling up sooner than the magic-user would be a "class specific XP award", of a sort.

As far as I can tell, all characters received different XP rewards for the use of their particular skills and abilities...and I'm not sure if it was an option in the 1e DMG, a mention/suggestion or just plain different groups, then, home-brewing that had different groups receiving different/additional XP depending on how well they "played their part."

Most groups I played with defaulted to "even split" of XP, in 1e then you'd add your 10% bonus if you had the ability scores for it...and then the DM might allot a bonus for different "special/extra good" in-character moments in play.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not sure what you mean by class-specific XP awards. From B/X-BECM to 1e (and apparently) into 2e, each class leveled at different XP values.

That has nothing to do with class-specific awards. What we're talking about here is where you get awards for doing specific things, depending on your class. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but as I recall, fighters got bonus XP based on Hit Dice of monsters defeated. Thieves got bonus XP for treasure found. Mages got bonus XP for researching spells and crafting magic items, and so forth.

I'm not very familiar with 1E, but I don't recall 1E or BD&D having this type of award. 3E and 4E certainly didn't.