Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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?

Nope. But we've played games that use similar mechanics.

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!

We do. But then I've had to shelf many great games that contain this kind of mechanic because my players and I cannot reach a middle ground. I get to pull these games off the shelf for one-shots at Gamedays, but that's it.

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.

I think you miss my point. I want to use the rule, I want to hand out FP/PP/etc. I'm just not great at recognizing times to do so. Every DM has his weak points.

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?).

Things like this help. But I'd prefer that games I enjoy not to have these kind of rules in the first place. I'm not saying it's the RIGHT way, I've just given my opinion and an example alternative that WotC could design around instead.

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.

I'd prefer it be linked to something and not just "Action Points 2: Inspirational Bugaloo."

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."

'Cheated' was the consensus in other similar systems from two of my three players.

 

[billd91]

I like this idea. Letting the DM choose what sort of actions gain 'Inspiration' will let DMs control how much of an effect this has on their group. It's easy enough to just never award it. And the fact that you can't hold it for long means it's not so much a resource to track but a situational modifier for a clever action.

It seems to me that WotC is in a tough position. When they focus only on combat, they get accused of ignoring roleplay. When they focus on roleplay, the forums go mad about WotC cramming 'bad acting' down our throats.

Funny.

Yeah, collectively, the boards are pretty contrarian. I don't see what all the furor is, really. Some people have been encouraging people to role play with awards (frequently XP) for as long as I've been playing and that's over 30 years now. Giving out chances to gain advantage seems like a pretty good use to me. The effect is substantial without being ridiculous because it can make failure much less likely in a given circumstances without greatly increasing the difficulty of the task a PC can achieve. Frankly, that's a great return for good role playing.

As far as whether or not the award is tied to the GM's authority or a player's choices, I don't care. I'd rather it not be tied to one or the other but perhaps a bit of both. I don't think I'd prefer it tied to any flaws or disadvantages though. Why shouldn't good RP choices or instances be limited to the PC taking on a particular difficulty? I'd prefer to award the player for good play even if they're not grappling with a flaw or buying up their difficulty. I like to share my cookies with people who entertain me even when the stakes are low. There's plenty enough reward for taking on challenges in the treasure distribution and XP system.

 

[JonWake]

Yeah, collectively, the boards are pretty contrarian. I don't see what all the furor is, really. Some people have been encouraging people to role play with awards (frequently XP) for as long as I've been playing and that's over 30 years now. Giving out chances to gain advantage seems like a pretty good use to me. The effect is substantial without being ridiculous because it can make failure much less likely in a given circumstances without greatly increasing the difficulty of the task a PC can achieve. Frankly, that's a great return for good role playing.

As far as whether or not the award is tied to the GM's authority or a player's choices, I don't care. I'd rather it not be tied to one or the other but perhaps a bit of both. I don't think I'd prefer it tied to any flaws or disadvantages though. Why shouldn't good RP choices or instances be limited to the PC taking on a particular difficulty? I'd prefer to award the player for good play even if they're not grappling with a flaw or buying up their difficulty. I like to share my cookies with people who entertain me even when the stakes are low. There's plenty enough reward for taking on challenges in the treasure distribution and XP system.

There is a collection of posters who will bash anything that comes out of Mearl's mouth. He could say something like 'we are going to use dice for 5e', and the mob leaders would be calling for his head because it OBVIOUSLY means that he's catering to the grognards who want dice to rule everything, and if the dice rule everything then it's obvious that Mearls hates 4e.

I may be a bit burnt out on it all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, collectively, the boards are pretty contrarian. I don't see what all the furor is, really. Some people have been encouraging people to role play with awards (frequently XP) for as long as I've been playing and that's over 30 years now.

I KNOW this will be a point of contention in my group. Back when I first started playing we had 5 different DMs in the same group and we'd vote on which game to play each week. We had one DM who used to hand out XP for roleplaying. It became a huge argument amongst the players because some people felt that "roleplaying" was too subjective. One player felt that his character was a rather silent loner and that by not saying anything during the session he was roleplaying his character extremely well but that he never got XP for doing that. Our group jointly decided not to hang out XP for anything that wasn't a direct threat to the PCs. So monster and traps got XP. No XP for roleplaying, bringing the DM food, or showing up on time. All these were tried and all of them caused arguments when the player who always played loners became a level or two behind because of no roleplaying xp or the person who always showed up late died to monsters because he had less levels than everyone else.

The same thing happened during the early years of Living Greyhawk. There used to be a reroll certificate handed out to someone at the end of every session. This reroll was given out to the player that was voted as the best roleplayer. I loved this mechanic...but I was never given the reroll ever because there was always a better roleplayer there than I was. Plus, people only ever voted for their friends so if you showed up as the solo player who didn't know anyone you were already at a disadvantage. WOTC mandated that the rule be removed after they got too many complaints.

We also have a player who really hates any rules that rely on player skill rather than character skill. He hates games without a Diplomacy skill or a Knowledge skill so the DM can tell him what he knows and what he says rather than having to come up with it himself. I'm sure he'll hate this mechanic.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

There is a collection of posters who will bash anything that comes out of Mearl's mouth. He could say something like 'we are going to use dice for 5e', and the mob leaders would be calling for his head because it OBVIOUSLY means that he's catering to the grognards who want dice to rule everything, and if the dice rule everything then it's obvious that Mearls hates 4e.

I don't agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. 4e is a lot more rules focused. The rules determine everything and leave little up to the decision making of the DM. A lot of players who have had really bad experiences with DMs in the past find this comforting and the idea of a game without these "protections" in place can seem a little scary.

 

[Li Shenron]

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."

It's hard to tell about how "rule light" the Basic game will be, since they have been talking about Basic vs Standard game for a long time already, but they have never shown what (among the rules available for playtesting) will belong to Basic and what will be from Standard onward. Their talking about "core" is not clarifying, since half of the people intend Core = Basic, and the other half intend Core = Standard.

OTOH, indeed modularity has been one of the main announced targets of 5e since the start. I am completely baffled when they talk about "baking" a subsystem into the game, as if they are trying to purposefully making it mandatory, which is the exact opposity of modularity! How can they be actively working against the target they had set for themselves?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's hard to tell about how "rule light" the Basic game will be, since they have been talking about Basic vs Standard game for a long time already, but they have never shown what (among the rules available for playtesting) will belong to Basic and what will be from Standard onward. Their talking about "core" is not clarifying, since half of the people intend Core = Basic, and the other half intend Core = Standard.

They've never said PRECISELY, but they've definitely hinted a lot.

As far as I can tell the "basic" game right now is choose a background, specialty, race and class then write down what each of those gives you.

The "standard" game is pick a background but choose 4 skills instead of the ones they give you, then pick feats instead of choosing a specialty.

However, I suspect the "current version of the rules are slightly changed from that to be:

"Basic" is choose a race, class, and background (I suspect there are no more specialties). Write down what those give you. When a class tells you to gain stats, you gain those stats.

"Standard" is choose a race and class. Then pick 4 skills. Pick a background benefit. Then when a class tells you to gain a stat, you can choose a feat instead. Multilclassing is likely only an option in Standard.

"Advanced" is the standard rules plus however many optional rules modules you want to add on top.

OTOH, indeed modularity has been one of the main announced targets of 5e since the start. I am completely baffled when they talk about "baking" a subsystem into the game, as if they are trying to purposefully making it mandatory, which is the exact opposity of modularity! How can they be actively working against the target they had set for themselves?

From my reading of what they've said their idea of modularity is having rules that can be easily replaced by other rules.

Like the above, backgrounds are simply prechosen lists of skills. But that's a module that can be taken out and instead allow people to choose their skills. Stat bumps are a rule that can be taken out and replaced with the "feats" module to allow more customization. The rate people heal from resting can have a default core but can be replaced by the "faster healing" or "slower healing" modules.

This allows them to create "Advanced" rules that are simply replacement for certain "core" rules. Like there might be an advanced rule that replaces hitpoints with something else. It tells you that in order to use it, you need to cut out the rules for gaining hitpoint, for resting, and for damage and replace them with something else. This is why they've said that advanced rules likely won't be compatible with one another and none of them will assume you are using any of the others.

They've essentially created a "tree" where all the modules grow out of the "core" basic rules.

I've always said since the beginning that I believe people are expecting WAY more modularity than WOTC ever planned.

 

[billd91]

The same thing happened during the early years of Living Greyhawk. There used to be a reroll certificate handed out to someone at the end of every session. This reroll was given out to the player that was voted as the best roleplayer. I loved this mechanic...but I was never given the reroll ever because there was always a better roleplayer there than I was. Plus, people only ever voted for their friends so if you showed up as the solo player who didn't know anyone you were already at a disadvantage. WOTC mandated that the rule be removed after they got too many complaints.

That's unfortunate. WotC should have stuck to the certificate and maybe given it to the DM to decide MVP or at least most interesting PC so it's not quite so subject to coalition voting. It's a small benefit, really, and I think it's valuable to recognize good and/or effective players, particularly in public situations where scratch tables are often built at a convention. Among the great opportunities of those play environments are the chance to witness different styles and learn from other players. I can't imagine how the people who complained would have handled the old school RPGA tournaments in which individuals advanced purely on role playing and being voted or judged best at the table.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's unfortunate. WotC should have stuck to the certificate and maybe given it to the DM to decide MVP or at least most interesting PC so it's not quite so subject to coalition voting.

It's been a while, so I can't remember at this moment, but I have a vague recollection of them doing this for a short period of time. The DM decided instead of voting. However, if I remember correctly it didn't solve the problem that many players felt their PC who didn't say anything was the best roleplayed and the DM didn't recognize it. Plus, the DM could still play favorites if any of the players were his friends.

I know that these certs definitely piled up in certain player's hands. I remember a couple of games where one player pulled out his 17 reroll certs while no one else at the table had even gotten one. Then that same player got another one at the end of the game.

I mean, it might mean that they were such a great roleplayer that they were always the one to get the cert. However, it was my experience that the player who spoke up the most got the cert regardless of their roleplaying ability. All you had to do was constantly say you were doing SOMETHING, anything. I once remember a player who went off on his own on a tangent that had nothing to do with the adventure, he nearly got the rest of the party killed and didn't appear to even understand what the adventure was about. However, he got the cert that session because he just did so much stuff. Plus, he was the defacto "leader" of a group of players who played together often.

I think a lot of people just felt(I know I certainly did) at the end of a number of sessions that they had really put in the extra effort to try to get their roleplaying recognized only to have someone that clearly didn't deserve it get it for some reason or another. Sometimes for reasons as silly as "I liked that name you called the villain, that was hilarious, you get my vote for best roleplayer".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Things like this help. But I'd prefer that games I enjoy not to have these kind of rules in the first place. I'm not saying it's the RIGHT way, I've just given my opinion and an example alternative that WotC could design around instead.

Well, the question for WotC becomes one of trade-offs and presentation. It's clear they want to include mechanics that support role-playing in the Basic game, because they want to drive home the idea that D&D is a game where you pretend to be another person to everyone who plays it and especially newbies. This seems like a reasonable and even positive goal to me. And "Advantage on some check in a climactic scene" seems to be basically a slightly more codified version of what DMs have done since the '70's: an ad hoc bonus for "good roleplaying." So it seems simple and rewarding and even a part of D&D history.

Excluding any and all ad hoc roleplaying bonuses from the rules would seem to not make the game as strong or as broad. Especially given that you could never hand out the bonus and the game would run fine (ie: it's something you can easily opt out of for your group, even say "We're not using that rule."). That trade-off doesn't seem worth it to me.

I'd prefer it be linked to something and not just "Action Points 2: Inspirational Bugaloo."

I can totally see the logic in making it a little more concrete, by the Basic rules. Sort of: BASIC: "You get Inspiration for doing X." / STANDARD: "You can give out Inspiration whenever you feel it's fun to do that."