-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next
- Thread starter Plaguescarred
- Start date
Remathilis
Legend
Throw in Flaws and Perks and we might have a modern roleplaying system.
I do find it rather odd that D&D has never adopted such a system outside of 3E's Unearthed Arcana.
Player's Option: Skills and Powers had advantages and disadvantages that cost/gave character points you could use on buying/improving NWPs. So if you wanted a PC who was Lucky, Ambidextrous, or had Keen Eyesight, you could buy it with CP and if you wanted more CP, you could be colorblind, unlucky, or hard of hearing.
Glad DND is finally moving into the 21st century, this , if implemented right, should be really a great addition to the system.
There are definitely groups of people that will try and abuse this mechanic (much like everything else in the system), but luckily, I don't role play with any of them. Its a really good way of getting new players into the swing of role playing and gives them a clear abstract goal to aim for. Handing out a physical chip does a lot for the game, psychologically, and adds an another "deep" resource to the game, as well as supporting a pillar they've said they would support.
There are definitely groups of people that will try and abuse this mechanic (much like everything else in the system), but luckily, I don't role play with any of them. Its a really good way of getting new players into the swing of role playing and gives them a clear abstract goal to aim for. Handing out a physical chip does a lot for the game, psychologically, and adds an another "deep" resource to the game, as well as supporting a pillar they've said they would support.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
Well, since everyone seems to think that this is turning D&D into FATE I suppose I have to weigh in.
Its not. I should be so lucky.
The entire purpose of FATE points (in FATE) is to instill dramatic tension while aiding in its resolution. To do that, you have to earn an FP by taking some kind of story or aspect-related hit. That means that failure is involved. Yes, in FATE, you sometimes get paid to fail. Directly, as in, the GM holds up a FATE point and says "Maybe your Barbarian Upbringing causes you to make a big gaff at dinner, offending the Duke?" It generates story: Yes, <the bad guy> got away with the <important thing>, but we got FATE Points to help in the adventure part of fixing it. That's how stories go: problem generated, then problem resolved. Later on, you might spend that FP to use an aspect for big bonus or re-roll on some action that reflects one of your aspects (maybe even the Barbarian Upbringing that earned it in the first place.)
In that way, FATE points drive characters to play to their aspects. In FATE aspects often cover everything like background, personality, profession, some specialties, race, motivation, etc. They're pretty wide open, and very good at handling the more hazy narrative end of characters. So I could see (and many people already use) a system of FATE-style aspects and FP to replace alignment, background, and maybe even some racial and class elements within D&D. Which would drive D&D to be a much more story-oriented game. (Not for everyone, to be sure.)
So FATE points and aspects are all about pushing story and characters together. These Inspirations and Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, Sparks and Alignment, don't seem to do that. Heck, the stated goal of Inspirations is to "encourage roleplaying", so they're not even trying to. (First off, I dunno exactly what "roleplaying" means here, but the article seems to suggest that he intends it to mean taking some kind of actor stance. Fine.) This is all about playing up a character's personality (apparently) so let's start there.
Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, Sparks, and Alignment. I guess my first criticism is "Why three categories?" Which one is I'll kill every orc I see? Is that a bond for the oath I swore to the local Duke? Is that a Flaw that screws up my interactions with the orcs? Or is it an ideal that I've taken on as an apparently hard-core anti-orcist? (Maybe it could be all three....) If the three categories don't have distinct functions, I'd say make them all personality or alignment traits and be done. (Honestly, by itself, this could be a vast improvement over traditional alignment.) So far, we've added a few descriptive notes to the header of the character sheet. I would suggest that we need a way to change these during the progress of play, especially Bonds. I'd also suggest some kind of Relationship trait with another PC. All said: not terrible, but what does it get us?*
While not explicitly stated, it would appear that we can use these to earn Inspirations. Now, this might sound like earning FATE points, but its got critical differences. Firstly, there is no downside. I can earn an Inspiration by "describing your action in an interesting way, acting out your character's dialogue, or otherwise helping to bring the game to life by adding some panache to your play." So, by adding some adjectives or speaking in character...I get a bonus? hmmm....hang on...I can bank it for an unrelated action later in the scene? I can use it equally on any roll? I can pass it on to another character? But, I get only one per scene, and they fade after that scene? Oy.
I can see it now: 5/6 of all characters will have Inveterate Tomb-robber as a flaw and Kill all monsters as an Ideal. No doubt some kind of poverty-induced Spark or Bond will encourage treasure-grabbing as well.
And why not? Isn't that the character they want to play?
So my suggested fixes for Inspiration points (in descending order of my strength of opinion):
Why? The second is to avoid having the ubiquitous Inveterate Tomb-robber character. The second, third, and fourth (linking usage to traits) are all about giving those traits more meaning. For the fifth, that adds a setting on the dial for how much you want this to matter in your game. The sixth is
Aren't these just FATE points? Well, they're close. Even the original implementation is close enough to give people that impression. However, FATE points don't really require the RP to earn or utilize (you often get that as part of the package, but its technically not a requirement.) That's going to change how people word these traits vs. aspects, if not what they take entirely. Also, these are all earned during play, usually you get a starting "refresh" of FATE points. (There's also a bunch of stuff that you can do with FATE's aspects and FATE points that are way out of D&D's turf, and that I never expect to see D&D implement). I think these would also have a much lighter impact on play, where FATE points and aspects are a primary conduit of gameplay in FATE.
Anyway, all IMO, etc.
Its not. I should be so lucky.
The entire purpose of FATE points (in FATE) is to instill dramatic tension while aiding in its resolution. To do that, you have to earn an FP by taking some kind of story or aspect-related hit. That means that failure is involved. Yes, in FATE, you sometimes get paid to fail. Directly, as in, the GM holds up a FATE point and says "Maybe your Barbarian Upbringing causes you to make a big gaff at dinner, offending the Duke?" It generates story: Yes, <the bad guy> got away with the <important thing>, but we got FATE Points to help in the adventure part of fixing it. That's how stories go: problem generated, then problem resolved. Later on, you might spend that FP to use an aspect for big bonus or re-roll on some action that reflects one of your aspects (maybe even the Barbarian Upbringing that earned it in the first place.)
In that way, FATE points drive characters to play to their aspects. In FATE aspects often cover everything like background, personality, profession, some specialties, race, motivation, etc. They're pretty wide open, and very good at handling the more hazy narrative end of characters. So I could see (and many people already use) a system of FATE-style aspects and FP to replace alignment, background, and maybe even some racial and class elements within D&D. Which would drive D&D to be a much more story-oriented game. (Not for everyone, to be sure.)
So FATE points and aspects are all about pushing story and characters together. These Inspirations and Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, Sparks and Alignment, don't seem to do that. Heck, the stated goal of Inspirations is to "encourage roleplaying", so they're not even trying to. (First off, I dunno exactly what "roleplaying" means here, but the article seems to suggest that he intends it to mean taking some kind of actor stance. Fine.) This is all about playing up a character's personality (apparently) so let's start there.
Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, Sparks, and Alignment. I guess my first criticism is "Why three categories?" Which one is I'll kill every orc I see? Is that a bond for the oath I swore to the local Duke? Is that a Flaw that screws up my interactions with the orcs? Or is it an ideal that I've taken on as an apparently hard-core anti-orcist? (Maybe it could be all three....) If the three categories don't have distinct functions, I'd say make them all personality or alignment traits and be done. (Honestly, by itself, this could be a vast improvement over traditional alignment.) So far, we've added a few descriptive notes to the header of the character sheet. I would suggest that we need a way to change these during the progress of play, especially Bonds. I'd also suggest some kind of Relationship trait with another PC. All said: not terrible, but what does it get us?*
While not explicitly stated, it would appear that we can use these to earn Inspirations. Now, this might sound like earning FATE points, but its got critical differences. Firstly, there is no downside. I can earn an Inspiration by "describing your action in an interesting way, acting out your character's dialogue, or otherwise helping to bring the game to life by adding some panache to your play." So, by adding some adjectives or speaking in character...I get a bonus? hmmm....hang on...I can bank it for an unrelated action later in the scene? I can use it equally on any roll? I can pass it on to another character? But, I get only one per scene, and they fade after that scene? Oy.
I can see it now: 5/6 of all characters will have Inveterate Tomb-robber as a flaw and Kill all monsters as an Ideal. No doubt some kind of poverty-induced Spark or Bond will encourage treasure-grabbing as well.
And why not? Isn't that the character they want to play?So my suggested fixes for Inspiration points (in descending order of my strength of opinion):
- These should be totally optional, they would be a drastic change to some D&D playstyles. (I guess if a DM never awards them, they are.)
- You've got to earn them by taking a hit of some kind--either a risky penalty or auto-failure. This must be roleplayed out and be related to one of your traits.
- Using Inspiration points also requires the rp and a relationship to one of the traits.
- Passing it on: you can do it only when you can
narrateroleplay how one of your traits helps the recipient. - The limit of one Inspiration at a time is optional.
- They don't expire at the end of the scene---maybe. I'd like some playtesting on that one. Possibly that would be an optional rule for a more FATE-like experience.
Why? The second is to avoid having the ubiquitous Inveterate Tomb-robber character. The second, third, and fourth (linking usage to traits) are all about giving those traits more meaning. For the fifth, that adds a setting on the dial for how much you want this to matter in your game. The sixth is
Aren't these just FATE points? Well, they're close. Even the original implementation is close enough to give people that impression. However, FATE points don't really require the RP to earn or utilize (you often get that as part of the package, but its technically not a requirement.) That's going to change how people word these traits vs. aspects, if not what they take entirely. Also, these are all earned during play, usually you get a starting "refresh" of FATE points. (There's also a bunch of stuff that you can do with FATE's aspects and FATE points that are way out of D&D's turf, and that I never expect to see D&D implement). I think these would also have a much lighter impact on play, where FATE points and aspects are a primary conduit of gameplay in FATE.
Anyway, all IMO, etc.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
The great benefit about making D&D Next modular is everything that is potentially contentious can still be included. It gets to be cutting edge, but not necessarily at every table. Not to mention some directions are going to end up being largely contradictory to others. Modularity allows for tons of additional features and the possibility to court even small niches of interest in the hobby, be they about particular play styles, settings, game mechanics or whatever.
But I don't believe in panacea. What these designs do is shift to each table the choice -and therefore potential conflict- of what modules to include in any group's particular runnings of the game. This means potentially contentious discussions for what each person wants in the game. Sure, Next is designed so each person's experience is different, but those differences don't include everything and that design brings up its own special challenges.
My point is, Wizards could really help itself out by getting ahead of those discussions before they happen. I don't see this as a design issue, but rather advice and perhaps even common protocol presented in the rulebook. I'm thinking selection of these core elements of design, the modules, could be presented as part of overall play. They are "campaign decisions" the group makes together as part of the first session, perhaps where players submit setting content, desired adventures, and create characters too.
No one I've read has said the mechanics in the article should not be in the game. But what features are tightly woven into the base game are going to cause a stir regardless of what they are. The game is almost 40 years old after all with many varied iterations. We should keep taking the inclusive approach. I suggest helping groups at the table find their own harmony.
But I don't believe in panacea. What these designs do is shift to each table the choice -and therefore potential conflict- of what modules to include in any group's particular runnings of the game. This means potentially contentious discussions for what each person wants in the game. Sure, Next is designed so each person's experience is different, but those differences don't include everything and that design brings up its own special challenges.
My point is, Wizards could really help itself out by getting ahead of those discussions before they happen. I don't see this as a design issue, but rather advice and perhaps even common protocol presented in the rulebook. I'm thinking selection of these core elements of design, the modules, could be presented as part of overall play. They are "campaign decisions" the group makes together as part of the first session, perhaps where players submit setting content, desired adventures, and create characters too.
No one I've read has said the mechanics in the article should not be in the game. But what features are tightly woven into the base game are going to cause a stir regardless of what they are. The game is almost 40 years old after all with many varied iterations. We should keep taking the inclusive approach. I suggest helping groups at the table find their own harmony.
Can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE just stop with the whole "If it's written in the book and I (as DM) decide not to use it, my players are going to get mad and complain!" excuse to justify NOT including things in the game? It is the LAMEST reason we hear over and over and over for not putting rules in the books, and it's just stupid.
You are DM. You are running the game. You get to tell your players the rules you will and will not be using, and the houserules you will and will not be using. If your players do not like your decision... they either will choose not to play in your game, they will go along with you anyway, or they will make inquiries to you why you are using/not using said rules and/or houserules. And if your ego is so fragile that you can't handle it when your players ask you why you are making these decisions... that is ON YOU. Stand up for your choices for pete's sake!
I've said it before and I'll say it again... don't expect WotC to put or not put rules in place just so that you don't need to take responsibility for your choices in the game you choose to run. You want to not use a rule in the book? OWN THAT DECISION! And stop complaining that you have to make decision in the first place.
You are DM. You are running the game. You get to tell your players the rules you will and will not be using, and the houserules you will and will not be using. If your players do not like your decision... they either will choose not to play in your game, they will go along with you anyway, or they will make inquiries to you why you are using/not using said rules and/or houserules. And if your ego is so fragile that you can't handle it when your players ask you why you are making these decisions... that is ON YOU. Stand up for your choices for pete's sake!
I've said it before and I'll say it again... don't expect WotC to put or not put rules in place just so that you don't need to take responsibility for your choices in the game you choose to run. You want to not use a rule in the book? OWN THAT DECISION! And stop complaining that you have to make decision in the first place.
What hinders role playing in D&D is its focus on combat at the exclusion of everything else (beware: opinion!). So what do they do to enhance role playing? Give combat bonuses for it.
If you want to encourage role playing you do it by providing a immersive environment and lots of options so that the players can unfold their imagination. Not by providing tables and giving out combat bonuses.
"I have 3 sisters, that gives me +1 on saves. And I tried to convince the lord to give out food for the poor. Surely that is worth one reroll."
That is not role playing, except maybe in WotC understanding.
If you want to encourage role playing you do it by providing a immersive environment and lots of options so that the players can unfold their imagination. Not by providing tables and giving out combat bonuses.
"I have 3 sisters, that gives me +1 on saves. And I tried to convince the lord to give out food for the poor. Surely that is worth one reroll."
That is not role playing, except maybe in WotC understanding.
Last edited:
I don't understand the uproar. Fate, Luck, "DMs Friend", Fortune, Fudge etc have been around a VERY long time and haven't ruined any games, nor has it been a slap in the face of roleplaying. Yes, it has been largely a house rule to date. Making it officially part of the game seems natural given the ubiquitous nature of its use. Until we see the actual mechanic, most of what this thread is about is Mike Mearls comments, which have notoriously been hamfisted. Legends and Lore causes more drama and uproar than the actual playtest packets he refers to (once their finally released). I suspect inspiration won't be as bad as the hyperventilating crowd, nor as wonderful as the cheerleading team. I feel confident it won't resemble what any of us inferred from Mearl's comments.
It is an official acknowledgement of the official inclusion in the playtest of some sort of "fudge" mechanic. That is about all we can say at this point.
It is an official acknowledgement of the official inclusion in the playtest of some sort of "fudge" mechanic. That is about all we can say at this point.
JeffB
Legend
I fail to see where giving Advantage on a (ability) check falls under the category of "combat".
Can you use it for saves and attacks too? Yes. But inspiration can affect ALL aspects of the game as per the choice of the players.
Similar Threads
