Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Vyvyan Basterd]

WotC could hand you a bare sheet of paper and say here is D&D. Sounds ridiculous, but you have to have something right? Bare sheets of paper are not a game. Thus, the default is actual rules. That is why people say things like "then don't use that rule!". Having it there has to be a default. Blank sheets of paper are no fun.

For every "game resolution situation" we expect the game to point to some "game resolution mechanic". In many ways, 4E was rules-light roleplay. I am an old school grognard, so I was fine with a combat-crunchy system, because I don't need rules for roleplay. Others like a crunchier roleplay experience, and most of them shied away from 4E. DDNext is trying, I think, to split the difference. Rules light roleplay (Simple skill system + Inspiration) that can be simplified to away to nothing (4E style), left alone, or expanded via modules and advanced rules (3E style). That's a tall order, and I am sure you won't be happy. I probably won't either. But if you are engaged in a forum during a development phase of the game, I am willing to bed tinkering with the game is a real option for anyone reading this, even if tinkering is dropping it entirely.

Splitting the difference is the problem. It does not satisfy someone who's played games with more dynamic roleplay mechanics, nor does it appeal to those who don't want those mechanics. I'd rather have a "blank sheet" with regards to this in the core than the half-hearted attempt they've come up with. I'd rather see something more fully fleshed out in a module. Someone called the benefits they're offering in the current proposal 'cookies'. What they remind me of are the strange little chocolate chip cookies my grandparents used to buy when I was little. They were named Bird Turds (I kid you not) and sum up what I think of the idea so far. Hopefully they surprise me as they further develop the idea.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh PLEASE!

D&D has said and will always say that the rules can be changed by anyone who is using them and wants to do so. Whether it's 'Rule 0', or standard "treat these rules as guidelines" or "feel free to make the game your own" statements in the books... everyone has always been allowed... if not in fact encouraged... to do whatever the heck they wanted to do with the rules for the betterment of their particular game.

Certainly. Statements are one thing, encouragement is another. The marketing to the playerbase encourages something quite different. It wasn't WOTC alone that grew the cult of officialdom. After all, a game company can produce product, but they can't force anyone to use it in a particular way. The clever part is arranging for your customers to demand to be dictated to from on high themselves. How brilliant.

So to imply or say that WotC has been holding a gun to your head these last 13 years telling you that you HAD to play the game in a certain way is absolute bullpappy.

Agreed. That hasn't happened.

What do you need? A disclaimer on the very first page of the very first book that says "HEY YOU! READER! IF YOU OR YOUR DM OR YOUR OTHER PLAYERS DON'T LIKE SOME OF THESE RULES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM!" in order to make sure everyone knows that EVERY SINGLE rule in the game--- whether it's a so-called "core rule" or "basic game rule" or "module" or "advanced rule" is ALLOWED to be changed or removed by someone at the start of their campaign to make the game how they want it.

Is that what you need? For WotC to treat every player like a blind idiot who apparently doesn't read? Come on!

It would hardly solve anything. As you already stated, the "encouragement" to freely ignore rules is already in the books. I must be imagining that there are players claiming that they won't play a given game without an ongoing flow of support. That will never happen. No one is such a blind idiot that they require a steady stream of new "official" mechanical fiddly bits from the gaming gods on a regular basis to maintain interest in a game of imagination. And certainly no one has refused to participate in a game that deviates from holy RAW. That would be silly!

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[Cyberen]

You'd think people would recognize a good mechanism when they see one...
* Inspiration is built with a dial : by (presumed) RAW, you will have the option not to give/earn any benny. So : if you don't like it, don't use it.
* Inspiration solves some math issues of the d20 system under the Bounded Accuracy paradigm. Namely, even if you're quite good at something, you often have a probability around 20% to fail miserably. Advantage makes it 4% and is thus required in risky situations. If you!re in for a game that rewards caution and careful preparation, you don't need any additional rule, but in case you would want a smoother tone, a way to gain (undue) advantage is required.
* Inspiration is a robust and simple way to implement "say yes" and "rule of fun" DMing habits : you can gain advantage for mechanical reasons, or because you're making an effort to think out of the box to try a cool stunt. In previous e's, it would be penalized by a difficult roll, but advantage is a great way to enable such stunts in a balanced manner. I hope this rule will be "default" in basic, for new DMs.
* Inspiration can contribute to solve some historical pacing problems : as it is earned during an encounter, it provides an incentive not to nova, and if you set it to last until the end of *next* scene/encounter but to reset to zero after a long rest, it works against the infamous 15 minutes work day.
* Inspiration is the Missing Link between many playstyles. Gygaxian would be Zero inspiration, Rule of Cool is as described in the L&L column, some mechanical allotment would emulate 4e dailies and action points, and you can imagine a reloaded E6 could require spellcasters to spend Inspiration to cast. You can easily add an Advanced of Inspirational features (Feats, I guess) enabling Inspirational Healing, or, god forbids, Inspirational CaGI ;-)
* For those who are afraid of powergaming and/or Mother may I effects, the earning system can easily be adapted : based on external events (a la 4e : recharge on short or long rests, or earned every other encounter...) or internal ones (a la MHRPG or TSOY keys) defined by the rules or on a more individual basis.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Essentially "DM's friend" is a +2/-2 circumstance bonus for 3E (and I think 4E) thats tied to GM fiat. I agree the hyperventilating over Inspirations seems misguided in light of the 10+ years of "DMs friend" GM fiat.

Circumstance bonuses were maily tied to mechanical advantages. Inspiration is tied (loosely) to roleplaying. They are quite different.

And the only people in see "hyperventilating" through their keyboard are people that feel they must YELL AT PEOPLE IN VERY LARGE TYPE to let them know they don't have to use a rule. We get it. We know we don't have to use it. We know many of our players will concede to the DM as a matter of ettiquette. But that does not discount the fact that some people will feel they are missing something by having the DM cut something out that's "baked into" the core game.

I want to offer my players a carrot to roleplay. But I'd rather that it not be a skinny half-eaten baby carrot at the end of the stick. Something big enough to make use of, not something that will fall into obscurity at my table.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Perhaps by sticking obnoxious stuff like this in the core more GMs will be reminded just who is in charge of their game and reach for AD&D instead of Next.

We can dream.

I can't speak for others, but only for me and my group... and the comment on this bit is "never never never never ever." That sounds more like a nightmare than a dream. Mind you, that doesn't mean I'm a big fan of 5e. So far, I see a lot of things I dislike (and some stuff I like). But going to AD&D? No way; not for me, and not for my group. We'd skip gaming altogether before we played AD&D for any real length of time.

That's just us, obviously. I know a ton of people like it, and that's cool. But if you can advocate for it, I think it's fine to say that I feel it has plenty of "flaws" (for what my group wants), and that I think it'd be a mistake to make something like AD&D again. As always, play what you like

 

[Derren]

* Inspiration is a robust and simple way to implement "say yes" and "rule of fun" DMing habits : you can gain advantage for mechanical reasons, or because you're making an effort to think out of the box to try a cool stunt. In previous e's, it would be penalized by a difficult roll, but advantage is a great way to enable such stunts in a balanced manner. I hope this rule will be "default" in basic, for new DMs.

I am probably alone with this, but the last thing the game needs is even more "Say yes" and "Rule of cool".
It would further immersion a lot of D&D would take itself a bit more seriously and present a consistent, believable world. And to do that you have to say no sometimes and make hard stuff actually hard to do with sometimes no reward instead of encouraging every silly, over the top stunt.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And certainly no one has refused to participate in a game that deviates from holy RAW. That would be silly!

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. Don't know what I was thinking.

Despite your sarcasm... the last thing WotC should be doing is encouraging behavior like that. And not putting in potential new rules that will service a large percentage of the playerbase just because some whiny people are going to cry foul because their DM would dare to deviate from RAW for the game HE IS RUNNING is ludicrous.

If you are unfortunate enough to play with those people, my sincere condolences. But I don't want WotC to use your playerbase as the baseline for all game decisions, because those people are unreasonable and apparently entitled.

 

[pemerton]

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

I think experiences with 4e are fairly varies (and that's not very surprising, given how many people play any given edition of D&D). I think GM judgement remains pretty crucial - in combat, it is especially prominent in the setting up of encounters and making choices for NPCs/monsters; out-of-comat it is crucial not just to framing skill challenges but to adjudicating the consequences of each skill check so as to reframe the unfolding situation as the challenge progresses towards its resolution. That is a different sort of GM role from (say in classic D&D) deciding the percentage chance of discovering a particular secret door, but nevertheless makes GM decision-making pretty central.

Banking it and passing it along both seem painfully metagame, but Mearls also used the word "scene" a few times, so clearly Mearls is clearly quite comfortable with playing the metagame. Which is odd in the context of talking about roleplaying, because roleplaying and metagame are kind of at different ends of an axis

<snip>

they just need to make sure that they remember that, as much as they all love the metagame, the best RP usually comes at the cost of losing the metagame context.

I think this is very contentious. After all, there are metagame-heavy games like MHRP, or Burning Wheel, or HeroWars/Quest, or FATE which, to the extent that they have good reputations, have reputations for driving roleplaying rather than getting in its way.

Runequest and Traveller are the most metagame light rulesets I know, but I don't think for that reason are distinctively excellent roleplaying vehicles. (Call of Cthulhu is an interesting case of both a metagame light and renowned roleplaying vehicle. My own theory is that is because it is so heavily GM-driven, and hence the players' real contribution is to get into actor stance, or a very richly developed author stance, and to "be" those investigators spiralling into madness.)

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.

<snip>

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.

Interesting point. Maybe players could track their own inspiration? It depends how the system characterises "roleplaying" - if that means rampant thespianism, probably someone else has to judge - it's hard to adjudicate your own artisitic effort. But if they are more like MHRP XP, or some (not all) features of BW's points systems - ie focused on the ingame actions and situations in which the PC find him-/herself, rather than focused on the artistry of the PC's portrayal of his/her PC - then player self-management becomes more viable. Like you, I would tend to prefer the latter approach.

You'd think people would recognize a good mechanism when they see one...

<snip>

Inspiration solves some math issues of the d20 system under the Bounded Accuracy paradigm. Namely, even if you're quite good at something, you often have a probability around 20% to fail miserably. Advantage makes it 4% and is thus required in risky situations.

<snip>

Inspiration is a robust and simple way to implement "say yes" and "rule of fun" DMing habits

<snip>

advantage is a great way to enable such stunts in a balanced manner.

<snip>

Inspiration can contribute to solve some historical pacing problems : as it is earned during an encounter, it provides an incentive not to nova

<snip>

some mechanical allotment would emulate 4e dailies and action points

<snip>

the earning system can easily be adapted : based on external events (a la 4e : recharge on short or long rests, or earned every other encounter...) or internal ones (a la MHRPG or TSOY keys) defined by the rules or on a more individual basis.

I think you're right about the sort of ground this style of mechanic can cover. I think your last point is key, though - how are the various earning/recharge options going to be framed, and will other parts of the game mechanics support them or push against them. In 4e, for instance, the pacing dynamics of recharge for APs, encounter powers and the like are supported by power durations, the short rest mechanics, and the like - everything pushes towards "the encounter" as a unit of measurement in the game.

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.

Good point on the contrast between "problem" and "question". And I agree it's interesting to see this kind of thing being looked at.

In the context of D&D, it reminds me of an issue that came up in the "what can we learn from BW" thread a month or three ago: because of D&D's level system, a player who tries to build his/her PC into the centre of some sort of epic conflict is precluded from engaging directly with that conflict at start, because the epic enemey is (say) 10th level and the PC only 1st. So inevitably the authorial control passes back to the GM to frame the intermediate story steps that will progress things from 1st to 10th. I wonder if they are looking at how flatter math/"bounded accuracy" might help with this issue?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I am probably alone with this, but the last thing the game needs is even more "Say yes" and "Rule of cool".
It would further immersion a lot of D&D would take itself a bit more seriously and present a consistent, believable world. And to do that you have to say no sometimes and make hard stuff actually hard to do with sometimes no reward instead of encouraging every silly, over the top stunt.

You're not alone (my RPG has a "Saying No" section in the Running a Game chapter). I'd like to see this mentality applied a lot more, honestly; this goes for supernatural and mundane, too. (I'd XP, but you have yours turned off, and I try not to XP people with XP disabled.) As always, play what you like

 

[Sunseeker]

I am probably alone with this, but the last thing the game needs is even more "Say yes" and "Rule of cool".
It would further immersion a lot of D&D would take itself a bit more seriously and present a consistent, believable world. And to do that you have to say no sometimes and make hard stuff actually hard to do with sometimes no reward instead of encouraging every silly, over the top stunt.

D&D should allow DMs to make the decision on what they say yes or no to, or how silly or serious their world is. Players should be encouraged to be creative. And DMs should have the right to set the bar on when "creative and fun" becomes "stupid and inane". Of course problematically, it's everyone's game. The DM can't play without the players, and the players can't play without the DM, so both sides need to practice rationality and compromise when it comes to what they want to do and what the DM will let you do.

Honestly so far in DDN I see a lot of top-down advice, ie: how to be a good DM, how to limit/encourage your players, etc...etc..., where's the advice for the reverse? Where does it talk about how to be creative as a player, within limits? Where does it encourage the player to work things out with others?

I mean it's no wonder we generate bloodthirsty parties. It's simple, it's straight-forward, it requires little thought or discussion, and it generally works. DMs are too quick to assume anything players want is unreasonable, and that creates players who give up on being creative because their DMs shoot them down before listening to their idea.

D&D needs bottom-up rules of engagement just as much as it needs top-down ones.