Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Neonchameleon]

To me it looks as if someone has shown Mike Mearls Dungeon World and he's trying to loot the Bonds mechanic from there. Which ... is understandable given that DW was written to emulate one style of D&D.

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.

XP are there to reward what the game is meant to be about. In 1e you had XP for GP - the game was about getting treasure as fast and safely as possible. And because of the ratios, XP for killing was an afterthought. In 2e you gained XP from behaving like a stereotypical member of your class and doing class-based things. In 3e you gained XP from defeating monsters. In 4e you gained XP from overcoming challenges, whether quests, out of combat challenges (Skill Challenge XP) or combat.

I dunno. WOTC has spent the last 13 years creating the consumer oriented gamer and cultivating the cult of officialdom. 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.

WotC has spent the past 13 years getting away from the consumer oriented culture that AD&D handed it. In the 90s an average of five books per month were put out for 2e. At no point that I am aware of has WotC even approached this level of consumer-oriented products. And as for a "cult of officialdom", there is not and has never been a cult of any D&D person that exceeded the reverance paid to E. Gary Gygax.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. But 4e does take a lot of power out from DM decisions and put them into the rules. Which is why a lot of players feel the shift into D&D Next is putting too much power back into the DMs hands. Like being able to arbitrarily decide what counts as good roleplaying and give out benefits because of it.

Two things.

1: There is nothing a 4e DM can't create. What next does to me as a DM is takes tools away from me. If I want to give a monster a given ability (or power) in 4e there is no reason I shouldn't. If I want to summon Orcus, or to set the DC to walk a tightrope as either 10 or 30 in 4e I can. The rules just tell me both are bad ideas.

2: 4e actively puts a lot of power in the DM's hands that was taken away by 3e. In 3e a standard tree was DC 15 to climb.

What the 4e rules do is say "This is a good way to run things and how we suggest. Run it how you like, but running it in other ways will void the waranty."

********************

Leaving the most interesting for last, Kamikaze Midget brought up the genre emulation/roleplaying mechanics. There are two basic approaches to metagame currency. "What's my action?" and "What's my motivation?"

Under "What's my action?" play, I'm going to have that drink because I'm in the head of someone for whom drinking feels good. Never mind the fact that objectively it's stupid and the only direct consequence is that I know I'm letting the side down. So I feel slightly bad about myself.

Under "What's my motivation?" play my character drinks because it feels good or because they are under stress and think they can handle it better drunk. Getting the plot point feels good, so it makes me feel good, and it makes me feel I'm better able to handle the coming challenges. The reason I have my character drink is very like the reason my character drinks. And "Just one drink point more. I can han'l it. hic."

This means that if I'm not completely immersed it is a much, much smaller step from "what's my motivation" to taking the action naturally than it is from a cold start. The game gives me a high in all the right places. And if I am immersed, I just pick up the bennie and my play doesn't change at all. And then I spend the bennies on extra effort. Which I should have as a decision.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I want actual play examples that prove the point, or at least that give some reason to think that it is more than one person's statement of preference.

The FATE-point example wasn't enough?

Mokay, then, lets look at Mearls's proposed idea to let Inspiration be given out by one player to another.

If I'm thinking in-character, getting Advantage on a d20 roll makes some sense. I'm putting it all on the line for something I truly care about, I'm entering the Zen state of hightened awareness, this is my moment, this is what I've waited for, so I am better able to eke out a victory. This applies equally to the character, and the player that is pretending to be that character, creating a good synergy between the experiences: as the player experiences the rush of climactic victory, so, too, does the character.

But if I'm pretending to be that character, I'm not going to be giving that rush to someone else. It's personal, it's me who has that experience, it's the moment I've been waiting for. I can't give that moment to this other person, because it's specifically personal.

So the ability to give Inspiration to another PC is meta-game: I have a fob, and I can pass that fob around the table. It removes me from the context of my character, and puts me in the context of a player at a table, playing a game where I have fobs. I am no longer thinking like my character, because my character has nothing to pass on, no fob that can transition, my character is at the moment in an emotional, invested moment, which may give me (as a heroic character) a higher chance to accomplish something, but would not enable me to give someone ELSE a higher chance to accomplish something.

That's not to say it's a bad mechanic, it's just not a mechanic good at fostering being in-character, it's a mechanic that instantly makes me aware that I'm at a table playing a game with fobs, which isn't where my character is, at all. If the goal of a "roleplaying" mechanic is to foster that place where player thoughts and character thoughts overlap and become one, to encourage playing a role, then the ability to pass on Inspiration doesn't meet that goal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Question: Is it specifically the "Aid Other" use of Inspiration that you are objecting to? Or do you also object to the use of Inspiration to push yourself? Because the specific use is very different from the general case.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Question: Is it specifically the "Aid Other" use of Inspiration that you are objecting to? Or do you also object to the use of Inspiration to push yourself? Because the specific use is very different from the general case.

It's the specific case that I feel doesn't meet the goal of encouraging role playing. But that's not even really an objection, it's just a recognition that meta-mechanics ("Your inspiration is a thing you can give away to other players; you get points for putting yourself in a bad situation") can work at cross-purposes with encouraging the player to think like the character they're playing the role of.

Which is really my main point: a mechanic with the goal of encouraging the player to think like a character is not going to be very good at that goal if it also demands that you remember you're at a table playing a game. So WotC would do well to keep that in mind as they're designing rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's not to say it's a bad mechanic, it's just not a mechanic good at fostering being in-character, it's a mechanic that instantly makes me aware that I'm at a table playing a game with fobs, which isn't where my character is, at all. If the goal of a "roleplaying" mechanic is to foster that place where player thoughts and character thoughts overlap and become one, to encourage playing a role, then the ability to pass on Inspiration doesn't meet that goal.

I think it's to encourage portraying a role, not necessarily experiencing what your character experiences.

 

[Dausuul]

It's the specific case that I feel doesn't meet the goal of encouraging role playing. But that's not even really an objection, it's just a recognition that meta-mechanics ("Your inspiration is a thing you can give away to other players; you get points for putting yourself in a bad situation") can work at cross-purposes with encouraging the player to think like the character they're playing the role of.

Suppose, instead of simply giving away your Inspiration, you could use your reaction to grant an ally advantage on an attack, check, or save? (The idea being that you throw your shield in front of your ally, distract the foe they're fighting, et cetera.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's to encourage portraying a role, not necessarily experiencing what your character experiences.

If so, that's pretty disappointing. One of the reasons I'm into RPGs is because of that capacity to inhabit other characters. Referencing tropes doesn't accomplish that goal, so a D&D that was more interested in aping archetype than in inhabiting an avatar wouldn't scratch my RPG itch very well.

Suppose, instead of simply giving away your Inspiration, you could use your reaction to grant an ally advantage on an attack, check, or save? (The idea being that you throw your shield in front of your ally, distract the foe they're fighting, et cetera.)

Better. Still a little problematic. Presumably I received this Inspiration because it's a climactic moment for my character. Defending an ally or harassing an enemy isn't something limited to a climactic moment, and also isn't really reflective of my character being the Inspired one -- they're just supporting another PC. It doesn't violate the in-character thought process as much, but it kind of makes the nature of Inspiration super vague.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Better. Still a little problematic. Presumably I received this Inspiration because it's a climactic moment for my character. Defending an ally or harassing an enemy isn't something limited to a climactic moment, and also isn't really reflective of my character being the Inspired one -- they're just supporting another PC. It doesn't violate the in-character thought process as much, but it kind of makes the nature of Inspiration super vague.

What if we require the character to yell out "WIN ONE FOR THE GIPPER!" when he wants to give inspiration to another character. That always works.

 

[Savage Wombat]

XP are there to reward what the game is meant to be about. In 1e you had XP for GP - the game was about getting treasure as fast and safely as possible. And because of the ratios, XP for killing was an afterthought. In 2e you gained XP from behaving like a stereotypical member of your class and doing class-based things. In 3e you gained XP from defeating monsters. In 4e you gained XP from overcoming challenges, whether quests, out of combat challenges (Skill Challenge XP) or combat.

Oh, but how I wish this were true. (At least from what I hear.) Every time a discussion of XP comes up on this forum I read countless responses about how their game has done away with XP altogether and just has the party level up "when dramatically appropriate." Treasure and Experience used to be the motivation for characters to adventure - now it has become an entitlement. So, no role-playing XP rewards for these kind of games.

 

[DMZ2112]

What if we require the character to yell out "WIN ONE FOR THE GIPPER!" when he wants to give inspiration to another character. That always works.

It's arguably less disruptive to immersion than "GM INTRUSION!"