Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[jrowland]

The issue with the proposed system ...

What system? A blurb in a L&L is not a system. There is no system. There is a blurb.

 

[jrowland]

Then I'm not quite sure why this is a mechanic that would be in the CORE rulebook? that above statement fairly screams "Modular Add-On for later."

A Core Rulebook should be something that should be universally applicable to all players/DM's, or at least as close to it as possible. (Not everyone will use everything from a book, that's a given.)

Depends on the definition of the word "CORE" doesn't it.

CORE to WotC (imo) is "supported mechanic"....ie, if they publish a module, e.g. they might put in inspiration as part of the adventure. Mearls tweets indicate its not only core, part of the BASIC game. In other words, its supported across all playstyles.

CORE to Players/DMs (imo) is often "the sum total of of official rules (i.e. without house rules)".

I'd like to reiterate again, we don't know the mechanic, only a L&L blurb. We don't know what the Basic, Standard, and any Advanced Modules look like. All we know is there will be a mechanic called inspiration. Everything else is Mearls bloviating with a "Man Bites Dog" blurb.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The article describes the mechanic pretty well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even if zero inspiration is "valid", those players not receiving it may feel cheated

Cheated? Really? You don't think that's a bit of an overreaction?

Ultimately what we're talking about in this scenario you've presented is a hypothetical (potentially to the point of being imaginary) player who clings so tightly to this mechanic of being able to re-roll d20's in a climactic scene with her magical elf that depriving her of that rule ruins the game for her on some level.

That person, if they actually exist somewhere, has bigger problems then not liking a particular game of D&D. Problems like being unable to enjoy a world where something absurdly minor doesn't happen quite as she wants it to.

We've all got preferences. And some people will have a preference for this rule -- they'll like it. And some times, they'll play at tables where the DMs differ -- the DMs don't want to use it. And in these situations, typically, either the player will decide it's not that important, the DM and the player will talk about it and one will decide that their preference isn't that important. That's part of what D&D teaches you: how to manage groups of people and competing agendas. All good things -- all things you want to happen -- engagement, discussion, social interaction! Things D&D can offer that no computer can.

The hypothetical extreme person (or extreme DM!) who has some out-of-proportion hang-up about a rule for make-believe being included (or excluded!) might happen, but this kind of person isn't the kind of person it's very fun to play with in general, anyway, because they lack one of the things you need to have to play a game of D&D: an ability to interact well with other people, including the ability to accommodate and discuss strong preferences and desires.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Cheated? Really? You don't think that's a bit of an overreaction?

Yes, I do think it's an overreaction on the part of the person feeling cheated.

Ultimately what we're talking about in this scenario you've presented is a hypothetical (potentially to the point of being imaginary) player who clings so tightly to this mechanic of being able to re-roll d20's in a climactic scene with her magical elf that depriving her of that rule ruins the game for her on some level.

These non-imaginary players names are Kerry Mullan and Fred Hicks. Does that help you? Didn't think it would, that's why I was vague in detail, but far from hypothetical. And if they're imaginary then I've had a real problem for the last three decades.

That person, if they actually exist somewhere, has bigger problems then not liking a particular game of D&D. Problems like being unable to enjoy a world where something absurdly minor doesn't happen quite as she wants it to.

People get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic. People get mad when the guy at Starbucks got their order wrong. It's no more absurd to think a player might get upset over rules in a game.

We've all got preferences. And some people will have a preference for this rule -- they'll like it. And some times, they'll play at tables where the DMs differ -- the DMs don't want to use it. And in these situations, typically, either the player will decide it's not that important, the DM and the player will talk about it and one will decide that their preference isn't that important. That's part of what D&D teaches you: how to manage groups of people and competing agendas. All good things -- all things you want to happen -- engagement, discussion, social interaction! Things D&D can offer that no computer can.

That's generally true, but things like Fate/Inspiration points cause one major problem. The player is encouraged to play a certain way to gain them. Seperately the DM/GM is supposed to recognize situations where he should hand those points out. I don't like games that require the GM to hand out points, because I'm not very good at recognizing when I should. My players enjoy gaining those points and after we've played such games express their displeasure at how few they gained, as they thought they did a good job of doing whatever it is you shoud do to get the points. This isn't either side being unreasonable. That's one of many reasons I like MHRP, it puts the earning of PP in the players' hands. It puts the earning of experience awards (which work more like Fate points than D&D XP) in the players' hands. Both sides get what they want. I don't have to account for another fiddly bit and the players have a way to earn the points they like to earn.

The hypothetical extreme person (or extreme DM!) who has some out-of-proportion hang-up about a rule for make-believe being included (or excluded!) might happen, but this kind of person isn't the kind of person it's very fun to play with in general, anyway, because they lack one of the things you need to have to play a game of D&D: an ability to interact well with other people, including the ability to accommodate and discuss strong preferences and desires.

"Instead of trying to mind read other posters, why don't you just ask?" ~ paraphrased from a very wise poster in a recent thread.

We interact well with each other. We have fun gaming together. I interact well enough with others to have popular game events at each Chicago GameDay. You're painting too broad of stroke about someone you know little about when I'm speaking regarding this specific topic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

These non-imaginary players names are Kerry Mullan and Fred Hicks. Does that help you?

Totes. Shows me that this isn't just hypothetical "but what if" wonkery without a real effect. Though I do wonder how long you've been playing with these rules that were revealed on Monday if you've had enough time to have Kerry and Fred develop an expectation of use that is deep enough that they feel cheated not having it. Do you typically play with Mearls' columns as part of your ruleset?

People get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic. People get mad when the guy at Starbucks got their order wrong. It's no more absurd to think a player might get upset over rules in a game.

There's a big difference you're glossing over there. The rage in Starbucks or in traffic stems from a lack of control over the scenario. You have control over the game. You can influence your fellow players and DMs. You at least have control over whether or not you participate. If you cannot enjoy the experience, you can go do something else...and you probably should!

The player is encouraged to play a certain way to gain them. Seperately the DM/GM is supposed to recognize situations where he should hand those points out. I don't like games that require the GM to hand out points, because I'm not very good at recognizing when I should.

Another skill D&D teaches you: self-confidence in your own judgements. As a DM, you should do it when you want to, and not do it when you don't want to. Your players should trust you to do it fairly, and/or not give that much of a fig if you flub it a few times.

But without that skill, I get that squishy kinds of "do it when it FEELS RIGHT" judgement calls can get hairy. Which is why mechanical elements like Goals come in. Or to take from the article, bonds: your character gains this Inspiration in an encounter that is associated with their bonds. As an example Handing out these points doesn't need to be squishy and vague, it can be as codified as XP (which, presumably, you don't have problems giving out?).

My players enjoy gaining those points and after we've played such games express their displeasure at how few they gained, as they thought they did a good job of doing whatever it is you shoud do to get the points. This isn't either side being unreasonable. That's one of many reasons I like MHRP, it puts the earning of PP in the players' hands.

I could see removing this from the DM's hands and putting it in the players': everyone has a point of Inspiration that they can't use, but that they can give to someone else once per session (or whatever). Now there's a precise amount in existence and it's not on you to figure out what you want to give it out for.

But now we're a far cry from "Some players will feel cheated if they can't play with the Inspiration mechanic, even though Mike said it's 'valid' to not use it."

 

[TarionzCousin]

Hogwash. It survived Thac0, Monks, Cavaliers, Dual-wielding Rangers, Character Points, Warforged, Upwards AC, Free-range multiclassing, gnome necromancers, Warlords, and Come and Get It, it will survive this.

We have a horde of these guys in our Shackled City game: Gnomeferatu. They're a huge pain in our collective donkey.

 

[steeldragons]

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?

Whoa. Why, exactly, would we do that? That's going to happen! Maybe not in your group...maybe not in mine...but it is hardly an unjustified position.

It is the LAMEST reason we hear over and over and over for not putting rules in the books, and it's just stupid.

Mmmmm'kay. So we're not dealing with reason, experience or logic here. Gotcha.

It is neither "lame" nor "stupid." It IS actually what will happen...in some groups...whether it happens in your group or not is not incontrovertible evidence that it is "lame" or "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.

Right...and you don't see any problem with the game/books stating, point blank, "this is how to work Inspiration points/chits/cookies" and then saying, as DM, "No we're not doing points/chits/cookies"? That amounts to noooo problems in your experience or foresight?!

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 can not express my disagreement with this. It has nothing to do with "fragile ego". It has to do with the leg to stand on to say "This is an optional rule, and I'm opting not to use it" vs. "This is a built in rule, right there for all the users of the books to see, and to take it out means you're not playing the game right."

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.

What does that even mean?

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.

I suppose I can't argue with that. The problem is...I think, at least...for many of us...is those decisions should not HAVE to be MADE! if we make them/ We'll "own" them. But why is it built into the fabric of the game...all of the sudden...after 30 years...that we NEED to make those DeCISIONS!?!?

 

[chaochou]

Mearls says

A final table provides your character with something that sparks the beginning of your adventuring career and gives your character a key problem or question that needs an immediate solution.
​

Isn't this basically the "kicker" from Sorcerry? I remember on a blog years ago, maybe even before he joined WotC, Mearls posted about rediscovering the kicker as an RPG technique. Looks like he held onto that rediscovery!

Yes, that could be pretty close to being a kicker as described in Sorceror. I say close because a 'question that needs...' is pretty weak sauce.

A kicker creates a situation where there can be no status quo - it puts the character in motion from the outset and makes them act against someone or something. A 'key problem that needs an immediate solution' looks like it ought to produce a kicker.

Interesting to see that this kind of thing is being looked at for 5e.

 

[jrowland]

The article describes the mechanic pretty well.

I disagree...nothing in that L&L is fit for a playtest packet (the place where mechanics are described "pretty well")