Ideas for Improving Inspiration

[Hriston]

In some systems where these gimmick points are tied to replace by troubles, they go to lengths to emphasize to the player **and** GM that you should pick/reccommend traits that lend themselves to coming up.

Often such systems push "double-edged" traits where it can commonly in play create as many opportunities for gains as for losses, etc.

But, also, those systems tend to link the "spend" to go thru the same kind of traits - if not the exact ones.

From what i saw, this seemed (both part) to grow out of a reversing of early mechanics where you got up-front chargen gains for "disads" and then often the player worked to minimize the in play impact of them since they already got the gains.

In some ways, those early up-front gains did more of what you describe because they often "valued" the disad by explicit statements of frequency and impact - that the player choose and then the GM was to enforce.

So, let me suggest, instead of the rulebook telling the GM to create these situations or give them any expectation of a given frequency or such, this be implemented by agreement between player and GM.

I agree that it should be part of the premise agreed upon by the DM and players that the game will be about the players' characters, rather than a game that has little to do with who the characters are.

Since this is a thread that in part tries to address the problem that some DMs have in knowing what to do with inspiration, I think it would be good if some advice was given, maybe in the DMG section about inspiration, to provide the players with situations that put the PCs' personal characteristics to the test, not with any particular frequency, but as part of the natural course of play. I don't think these instances should be seen as penalties either because by choosing the personal characteristics they have, the players have signaled to the DM on what sorts of situations they want the game to focus.

 

[5ekyu]

I agree that it should be part of the premise agreed upon by the DM and players that the game will be about the players' characters, rather than a game that has little to do with who the characters are.

Since this is a thread that in part tries to address the problem that some DMs have in knowing what to do with inspiration, I think it would be good if some advice was given, maybe in the DMG section about inspiration, to provide the players with situations that put the PCs' personal characteristics to the test, not with any particular frequency, but as part of the natural course of play. I don't think these instances should be seen as penalties either because by choosing the personal characteristics they have, the players have signaled to the DM on what sorts of situations they want the game to focus.

To me, this is a key point about these traits- they serve the player, the GM and the table by spotlighting right from day one "I want these in the play" or "in focus" and to me that follows thru to "non-mechznically".

See the player already gets to make tons of choices that they want into focus that have both mechanical and non-mechanical elements to them. These will show up in play and in focus as play progresses as a matter of course and choice.

So, that's part of why I dont see the need for mechanical payback for more story-defining or flavor-selecting choices. If one player wants to play a dwarf scarred by loss who hates orcs to the point of it affecting his in game in character choices to the point of "not the objectively best" and another wants to play a more savvy jaded one who is more sensible and calculating as a GM I am happy to have both and dont see a reason to tell the former "here, have a mechanical reward."

Some points that lead me that direction include:

1 Fun is it's own reward and bonuses for not fun suck. Really, if a player wants to play a flaw, they will and they will have fun. But if a player doesn't want to play a flaw but sees it as mechanically needed or perhaps even required by rule, that's not a plus to the table for them to put up with it anyway cuz they have to.

2 Craps gonna happen anyway. Have heard this often enough when players help with chargen. Explaining that the flaw is not really extra trouble since bad stuffs gonna happen - nature of the beast. It's just that with flaw choice it's you choosing to make the crap more personal, more focused more what you think can be fun. "They are your "so in in the ball."

3 Really, it's the team's flaw. If you are running the style of game which puts a good deal of focus on team play and group encounters, personal flaws have the tendency to often turn into or be seen in play as team flaws. One charaxter's "on the lam" does not just complicate their choices but the team choices. So, we come back again to why provide mechanical rewards to one when its "their flaw" that spices the stew this week? Now, if it's a more dispersed coterie style game where its frequent for PCs maybe to not even see each other for sessions - that changes.

These bits of experience plus my group's preference for spotlight on character not player tends to lead me to go with the "reward" for flawed characters being in game fun, in game reactions and not mechanical incentives and certainly not mandated requirements.

 

[5ekyu]

So as a floow-up on my last post as a defined "idea for improving inspiration."

Replace all inspiration rules with...

At game start each player has one inspiration chip.

At the end of a session, one or more players may try to spend inspiration. Only one may succeed however.
That player marks his inspiration as spent.
Inspiration is regained when the PC levels up. As an option, if all players are out, the GM may declare inspirations regain for all.

Spending inspiration.
At the end of a session a player may spend his inspiration to "extend" a currently going inspiration of another character. This option is allowed first at session end and if chosen, the next option is skipped.

If no inspiration was chosen to extend, the a player may spend an inspiration, pick three different traits of his living PC and request the GM include one of them the next session. Which is added, how its added etc is up to the GM.

So, here we boil inspiration down to a spotlight spinner - where players can choose to get certain traits included that they might be seeing not getting the attention the player seeks.

Now, none of the above says the GM cannot include these without an inspire spend or that inspire is required for extensions, but it just serves up a simple bit of narrative nudging with a mechanical tracker.

Also, note, if you are not playing a "backstory" or "flaw " driven character, you can engage fully in this system by using it to spotlight sbilities 9f your character **or** moreover to choose to extend an existing angle of someone rlse's that you enjoy or that you see syncs well with your character in some way.

 

[Blue]

So as a floow-up on my last post as a defined "idea for improving inspiration."

Replace all inspiration rules with...

At game start each player has one inspiration chip.

At the end of a session, one or more players may try to spend inspiration. Only one may succeed however.
That player marks his inspiration as spent.
Inspiration is regained when the PC levels up. As an option, if all players are out, the GM may declare inspirations regain for all.

Spending inspiration.
At the end of a session a player may spend his inspiration to "extend" a currently going inspiration of another character. This option is allowed first at session end and if chosen, the next option is skipped.

If no inspiration was chosen to extend, the a player may spend an inspiration, pick three different traits of his living PC and request the GM include one of them the next session. Which is added, how its added etc is up to the GM.

So, here we boil inspiration down to a spotlight spinner - where players can choose to get certain traits included that they might be seeing not getting the attention the player seeks.

Now, none of the above says the GM cannot include these without an inspire spend or that inspire is required for extensions, but it just serves up a simple bit of narrative nudging with a mechanical tracker.

Also, note, if you are not playing a "backstory" or "flaw " driven character, you can engage fully in this system by using it to spotlight sbilities 9f your character **or** moreover to choose to extend an existing angle of someone rlse's that you enjoy or that you see syncs well with your character in some way.

This feels like an entirely different mechanic with an entirely different purpose that just happens to be called he same. Not making any judgement as a mechanic, but it can exist alongside (or not) 5e Inspiration and doesn't fit the same design goals so it's probably better broken off and discussed on it's own merits.

 

[5ekyu]

This feels like an entirely different mechanic with an entirely different purpose that just happens to be called he same. Not making any judgement as a mechanic, but it can exist alongside (or not) 5e Inspiration and doesn't fit the same design goals so it's probably better broken off and discussed on it's own merits.

Obviously it could be a topic divorced from the 5e inspiration but its not seperated from 5e inspiration discussion that include earning mechanical bonuses from playing flaws, the use of inspiration to control of influence the story, etc.

It seems quite a bit of discussion on this thread has covered bits of those and spotlight and this presents it as a "mechanical" treatment that avoids the baggage of an in-scene mechanical dice boost with little to no in-scene explanation.

Is the purpose of inspiration solely to give player's a means to alter die rolls to have advantage? If so, yes, this is totally different.

If the purpose tho includes givong players additional mechanics to influence spotlight, to highlight character traits etc then this is one of those too - just not one that depends on an in-game in-sceen die roll edge being tied to it.

But, for GMs who feel a need to carrot this... Who dont think their players will do it or engage with it or enjoy it (or as much) without a carrot - then add this...

Each spent inspiration counts towards leveling. Maybe this os as simple as xp. Maybe its a minor milestone. Maybe all four or twice each counts as a major milestone. Maybe its an extra "session" if using session advance.

Maybe it pays put when spent.
Maybe it pays out when the hook is "resolved". Maybe it pays out when thr hook changes (or when it is extended for longer run-time.)

This moves the carrot out of scene, player side, just like the "spend".

 

[77IM]

I just remembered, I wrote a whole thing to replace inspiration:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1304

I haven't use this system yet. It was more of a thought exercise, since I thought it worked really well in Lady Blackbird.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yet another reason why "after-the-fact Advantage" is a good houserule for Inspiration.

Do you mean a re-roll or what does "after-the-fact Advantage" mean?

 

[CapnZapp]

If I'm reading this correctly, one of your complaints about Inspiration is that you get it for, say, roleplaying your character, and then 10 minutes later you get to spend it on, say, an attack. And it can be a pretty tall order to connect the two in the fiction. It's pretty weak (and just uninteresting) to say, "Um....I think back to how it felt when I let my greedy side get the better of me, and it makes me angry so I channel all that anger into my swing..."

I get that. I'm not disagreeing.

I also just don't care. I don't see that as a flaw of Inspiration, party because I don't really hold as a goal for RPG design the elimination of mechanics that are hard to explain within the fiction. I really enjoy storytelling and roleplaying, and I also really enjoy the tactical metagame. A game that combines both is better than a game that is exclusively one or the other.

If the carrot of having a free re-roll in your pocket for emergencies helps induce players to do more roleplaying I think that's good.

Again, not that I think Inspiration as it is currently implemented is great design, as evidenced by the number of people who forget to use it.

Well, this is all well and good from a "defending the rules that are in place" perspective. Are the given Inspiration rules serviceable?

Apparently, the answer is yes, at least for some.

But for people that are aware of much better ways of implementing it, it comes across mostly as a lost opportunity - a half-assed attempt that mostly feels like being there to cover WotC's ass "we totally threw you guys a bone".

Inspiration is not deeply integrated into the game. Know what? I bet the reason is because lots of hardcore D&D gamers feel meta mechanics intrude upon their minmaxing experience.

But know what twice? If they had done Inspiration right, that might not have been the end of things!

As written Inspiration feels lifted into D&D from another type of game (it also feels uninspired, but I think Angry has already made that joke). And by using advantage - a resource you can't stack - they shortcircuit the "bonus hunt" of the game: with Inspiration, you no longer need to play the game well, since you already got everything that playing the game well can give you: advantage.

By integrating Inspiration better into the game they could have accomplished two great things.

They could have achieved a significantly higher player adoption (if the mechanic felt more core)

They could even have converted more rollplayers into roleplayers (if the mechanic gave you an unique upside not attainable through other means)

Both these things are things a good proposal (like mine! ) addresses: the bonus is no longer advantage, and you need to look up and actually claim those pesky personality traits you once wrote down on your character sheet only to never look at again.

 

[CapnZapp]

In Fate, you have to use your Personality/flaw/ideal (traits) in order to spend a fate point.

All this talk of how other games does it better brings me to one good implementation.

* You have good traits (lets not call them advantages to avoid confusion). These are like low-key powers.
* You also have bad traits (personality flaws). These fuel your good traits.

When you invoke a bad trait (=the story takes a turn negative to your character, or your character does something bad for it or the entire group, etc) you gain one trait point.

In order to invoke a good trait, you must spend one trait point.

This way, rollplayers can ignore the whole subsystem (which I think is a requirement for a game like D&D). And roleplayers get to bring their characters personality traits, bonds and flaws to life AND gain something tangible out of the deal.

This makes your personality central, unlike WotC's Inspiration. You must just indulge your bad side in order to invoke your good sides.

(If you want to encourage the usage of the subsystem, you can start every session by giving each character one TP that have none. You can otherwise accumulate more than 1 TP and keep them between sessions.)

Of course, as you might surmise, bad traits you never use... have little function (other than maybe comedic effect etc). After all, if you don't use them you gain no TPs and maybe more importantly: your character stays bland and undistinguished. So feel free to replace them as you play. You might start out with a bunch and later crystallize your character into just one or three of them. This is all good.

Good traits seldom used are easier to keep - they might still be important to your characterization (even if not a particularly minmaxing choice). But as your character progress you're supposed to evolve your traits as well.

PS. I'm sure this or similar implementations (fueling good traits through bad) aren't unique so I won't claim it was invented by this or that game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Accidentally hit submit too soon here, please disregard.

Okay