D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[Skyscraper]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

Ok. I'm with you I guess. I think that inspiration is not necessary to get players to RP and I don't like rewards being associated to that. That's just me. I agree that the downside can be avoided; I just don't see the upside to it.

 

[iserith]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

Ok. I'm with you I guess. I think that inspiration is not necessary to get players to RP and I don't like rewards being associated to that. That's just me. I agree that the downside can be avoided; I just don't see the upside to it.

In my games, players "claim" Inspiration rather than get it from the DM. If a player invokes an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw during a scene, he or she can simply take Inspiration. In order to earn further Inspiration during that game, the player must invoke some different trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

For example, if the hermit cleric Wanda Curelight takes a chance to rush back into the crumbling observatory to get one last glimpse at the position of the ancient orrery, the player can claim Inspiration since the character's flaw is "I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge." The player would then have to play to the character's trait, ideal, or bond before earning Inspiration on the flaw again.

 

[Lanliss]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

But there are also suggested rules for players awarding inspiration. You could modify them a bit, and make it so that the whole table runs a quick vote, so it essentially becomes "make everyone happy" which is the whole goal of the game anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

3e had 'Rule 0,' but the community of the day was not wonderfully accepting of it, and generally saw it, really, something like you seem to still see it: as something that had to be done formally, up-front, and stuck to like a legal precedent. /Very/ different from the more open 'rulings no rules' motto that seems to be winning some acceptance in the 5e era.

Rule 0 is the same Rulings Over Rules. It just had bad packaging that resulted in the bolded. 5e just packaged it in a way that changed the perception of those playing the game and made them more accepting of it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

 

[Maxperson]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

It's not like that at all.

 

[Hussar]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

While you and I rarely see eye to eye on anything, I think this nails it pretty well.

Note, Maxperson and others aren't wrong when they say that fudging is included in DM advice. It is. But, for me it's poor advice.

How do you feel about putting fudging in the player's hands via things like action points or the like. 5e already has some effects like this- reactive spells for instance or Inspiration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rule 0 is the same Rulings Over Rules.

Rule 0 was 'feel free to change the rules,' but Rulings no Rules is feel free to overrule the rules on a case-by-case basis. The former lets you play a different version of the game with a little work up front - more different the more rules you change. The latter lets you customize the experience as you go, no up-front changes required.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule 0 was 'feel free to change the rules,' but Rulings no Rules is feel free to overrule the rules on a case-by-case basis. The former lets you play a different version of the game with a little work up front - more different the more rules you change. The latter lets you customize the experience as you go, no up-front changes required.

The 1e DMG tells you to understand the rules and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. Then it gives an example of ignoring a wandering monster roll that indicates a wandering monster on the fly as it comes up. That's not just changing the rules. That's Rulings Over Rules. 3e in the adjudicating section of the DMG says that the DM can supersede the rules, overturning them. That's not house ruling. That's Rulings Over Rules. 2e was no different.

The only difference between those editions and 5e is the packaging of Rulings Over Rules.

 

[Skyscraper]

In my games, players "claim" Inspiration rather than get it from the DM. If a player invokes an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw during a scene, he or she can simply take Inspiration. In order to earn further Inspiration during that game, the player must invoke some different trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

For example, if the hermit cleric Wanda Curelight takes a chance to rush back into the crumbling observatory to get one last glimpse at the position of the ancient orrery, the player can claim Inspiration since the character's flaw is "I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge." The player would then have to play to the character's trait, ideal, or bond before earning Inspiration on the flaw again.

This is too meta for my taste. I prefer freeform storytelling. There's enough meta in battles already, I'd prefer not to include any in the RP.