Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Neonchameleon]

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.

That's what I thought. And you're looking at the mechanic backwards. You're looking at the game mechanics first rather than fiction first - which makes a lot of sense in a D&D context because D&D started off as a tabletop wargame hack.

There are two basic approaches. Fiction First and Mechanics First. In a Mechanics First system the job of the mechanics are to present a list of options to you you can carry out, and you basically pick your action off the list. In a Fiction First system you are assumed to be able to do whatever the hell you like and the job of the mechanics is to chase after you and give you some sort of resolution. And it's assumed that if you are actually in character you won't think of anything immersion breaking.

Inspiration is Fiction First. You get to take one Inspired Action. You can use it to boost your own actions, or to aid another. If you can think of a good way to aid another that would pass on the inspiration (Bards, I'm looking at you!) you do that. If not you get to go big somewhere else. Wherever you think in character you want to go big. That there is a theoretical action that makes no sense shouldn't be immersion-breaking because you won't see it if immersed because it makes no sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are two basic approaches. Fiction First and Mechanics First. In a Mechanics First system the job of the mechanics are to present a list of options to you you can carry out, and you basically pick your action off the list. In a Fiction First system you are assumed to be able to do whatever the hell you like and the job of the mechanics is to chase after you and give you some sort of resolution. And it's assumed that if you are actually in character you won't think of anything immersion breaking.

I'm not yet drawing a link between these two models and what we're discussing. Inspiration is a mechanic that arises from embodying the character ("This is an important moment!") and being able to shift it around breaks that connection. I don't know if that makes it "Fiction First" or "Mechanics First," but I know shifting it around takes one out of a character's mindset and puts you back into a player's mindset.

You get to take one Inspired Action. You can use it to boost your own actions, or to aid another.

This is all well and good, but it tells me zip about what my character is thinking and feeling and doing, which, if you want to embody the character you're playing the role of, is kind of important.

Wherever you think in character you want to go big.

That's a meta-level decision, though. A character doesn't make a choice to get emotionally invested, they either are or they aren't. If the player is choosing when to use Inspiration, it's not acting in character, so it doesn't encourage playing the role.

Not to say that it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't help you think as one with the character you're playing. If that's the goal, it fails at that goal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is all well and good, but it tells me zip about what my character is thinking and feeling and doing, which, if you want to embody the character you're playing the role of, is kind of important.

Indeed. It tells you zip. You tell it. And then the mechanics follow.

That's a meta-level decision, though. A character doesn't make a choice to get emotionally invested, they either are or they aren't. If the player is choosing when to use Inspiration, it's not acting in character, so it doesn't encourage playing the role.

And here I couldn't disagree more. If you aren't deciding how to pace yourself and when to pull out all the stops, and when to sieze the moment then I don't believe that you are immersed.

Not to say that it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't help you think as one with the character you're playing. If that's the goal, it fails at that goal.

It doesn't help you think as one. What it does is if you are thinking as one with your character then the mechanics now reflect that and reflect where you put your focus.

 

[Warbringer]

This is what Savage Worlds says (and a really good starting point)

You should hand out a Benny anytime a player does something particularly clever, finds a very important clue, or generally advances the plot. You should also hand out Bennies for great roleplaying, particularly as it concerns their Hindrances. If a Loyal character jeopardizes his life to save his comrade, he definitely deserves a Benny for his efforts. It never hurts to reward a player for a great line, side-splitting in-game joke, or even a rare serious and dramatic moment. Average players should get one or two extra Bennies per night. Really good roleplayers may wind up with two to three.

 

[bogmad]

What I keep seeing is two sides eloquently stating their position and why they have it, and then becoming disgruntled when the other side has reasons for its [sometimes completely different] position that don't match up with their own.

This whole argument of what "roleplaying" means is a perfect example. It's like watching a Stanislavski inspired method actor argue with Meyerhold. [Apologies for the obscure reference. Welcome to what these forums look like to a non-gamer!] Sorry that analogy, but I guess it fits a bit if we're talking about inhabiting a role. One might argue that you have to internally inhabit the character and that will lead to the actions, and the other will tell you that by doing the physical actions themselves you'll get closer to the character's internal life. In a ttrpg context a third might tell you he doesn't give a damn about inhabiting the character in the first place.

Actors haven't agreed on how to best inhabit a role for hundreds of years so how do we expect us nerds sitting around a table to agree? There are plenty of "metagame" tactics someone trying to inhabit a role might use that works for one person but not another. Saying "giving a reward for what my character should do anyway takes me out of the experience and can't possible work for others" I don't get. Only crazy people can just decide to be a character. That's why the game has rules in the first place. Just because something like inspiration breaks immersion for one person doesn't mean it always will for everyone.

 

[howandwhy99]

XP isn't so much rewarded to the player as to the actions the PC succeeds in. The player may follow a strategy of attacking orcs and then a number of tactics as required when more details arise, but the XP for overcoming the orcs is also partly derived from the success or failure of the die rolls. Good odds leans towards gaining more XP faster, poor odds to less or even none. The game the players play is not only in assessing successful tactics and strategies, but also remembering the changing odds of the die rolls. Now whether the players deliberately play to this mastery or not the PCs gain XP for successful actions, even if occurring accidentally.

A Player's game resources and abilities are not due exclusively to XP. That's a role playing stat. We could play a Fighter and steal treasure all game long becoming very wealthy and highly dangerous just due to the equipment acquired. Or forget stealing, simply set up a mercantile business to make it rich trading legally within the laws of the lands you travel to. Another way is to collect rumors and archives of information to gain a wealth of knowledge about the world. This means talking to many people, which could also allow you to befriend and gain allies (associates, henchmen, but probably not followers) making you not only widely loved, but very powerful when it comes the NPC sphere of play.

Here's the thing: None of these actions are going to increase your PC's XP totals. They are not necessarily role playing performance, at least depending on the class. But they do improve the Player's overall abilities and amount of resources to influence the game.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

Yeah, I had this mental image when I read that of the GM being required to slap the player's character sheet before the player does to actually enforce the "GM INTRUSION!"

 

[billd91]

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.

No role playing XP awards, true. That makes giving out some other kind of bonus a good idea, doesn't it?

But Treasure and Experience don't become entitlements at all. If the PCs don't adventure, they still don't get the treasure nor do they level up. If there's no drama or advancement of the plot or whatever agendas the PCs might have, there's no getting closer to an appropriate time to level up. It's hardly dramatically appropriate to level up a PC who sits on their duff all game long or just goes about his normal daily life not having adventures. Calling those things entitlements is a pretty bad misread of that style of leveling up.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not yet drawing a link between these two models and what we're discussing. Inspiration is a mechanic that arises from embodying the character ("This is an important moment!") and being able to shift it around breaks that connection. I don't know if that makes it "Fiction First" or "Mechanics First," but I know shifting it around takes one out of a character's mindset and puts you back into a player's mindset.

You might be able to maintain that mindset if you get Inspiration and the DM can still judge how it's used. That is, if you say, "I'm going to give Bob my Inspiration because I really want him to make that save", the DM can say "How?" and judge the response. Which is crappy if you want to maintain character inhabitation, because then you're just trying to figure out what to say to the DM to get your bonus over to Bob's PC.

I guess if the rule was written in a way to emphasize in-character actions it might work: "You can use your Inspiration by having your character act inspired. When you do, any check related to your inspired action is made with Advantage. This includes checks made by other characters, if your inspired action relates directly to checks they make. Only one check made with Inspiration can get this bonus."

They might have to clarify what Inspiration means in the game world, what "acting inspired" means and how to judge when a PC is acting that way, and Inspiration's effect on actions without checks.

 

[pemerton]

The FATE-point example wasn't enough?

The Fate Point example seemed to be a hypothetical rather than actual play.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s description of the psychology of Aspects fits my own experience of these things better - metagame mechanics support immersion in those cases in which the metagame mechanic induces the same experience/emotion in the player as is being had/felt by the character.

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

<snip>

the ability to give Inspiration to another PC is meta-game

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

Rolling a d20 to attack is metagame, but that doesn't per se make it immersion-breaking.

Inspiration is a mechanic that arises from embodying the character ("This is an important moment!") and being able to shift it around breaks that connection.

What are the rules for passing inspiration? We haven't been told yet. But it doesn't seem too improbable to suppose that you have to narrate some action for your character that's inspiring of another. And why need that be immersion-breaking? If I'm play Captain America, or King Arthur, or even Conan, it's completely in-character to narrate myh inspiration of my companions.

A character doesn't make a choice to get emotionally invested, they either are or they aren't. If the player is choosing when to use Inspiration, it's not acting in character, so it doesn't encourage playing the role.

The player is sitting at a table rolling dice and eating chips. They are not going to have any instinctual responses that are apposite to the fiction. They have to make choices.

TL;DR: what [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has said. And some of what [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] said too.

There are plenty of "metagame" tactics someone trying to inhabit a role might use that works for one person but not another. Saying "giving a reward for what my character should do anyway takes me out of the experience and can't possible work for others" I don't get. Only crazy people can just decide to be a character. That's why the game has rules in the first place. Just because something like inspiration breaks immersion for one person doesn't mean it always will for everyone.

This I agree with!