D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[overgeeked]

Meh. Most of the time it's not worth getting in trouble.

Getting into trouble is the point. That’s where the fun is. The point is playing the role of the character. That’s why they’re called role-playing games. I honestly don’t get the notion of...transactional RP. I guess is a good name for it. The notion of “I won’t RP my character unless I get something out of it.” What you get out of it, what’s worth the trouble, is literally the game itself. That’s the point of it. Otherwise it’s a boardgame and your character becomes a game piece to move, nothing more.

 

[Sithlord]

I can’t fathom there is no external good when there is clearly an external evil. If there is no objective good we can not condemn evil acts like rape and pedohilia which I am certain no one here would even attempt to defend as not being evil.

 

[Aldarc]

Inspiration...?

I think that the problem many tables have is that it's so heavily dependent on GM fiat. There's no feedback loop really to spend and acquire it like in Fate with its aspects/troubles. There's not really a lot of mechanical meat or substance to the mechanic as is. I suspect it's due to a fear of alienating D&D players who loathe meta-currencies like Bennies, Fate points, etc.

 

[loverdrive]

Getting into trouble is the point. That’s where the fun is. The point is playing the role of the character. That’s why they’re called role-playing games. I honestly don’t get the notion of...transactional RP. I guess is a good name for it. The notion of “I won’t RP my character unless I get something out of it.” What you get out of it, what’s worth the trouble, is literally the game itself. That’s the point of it. Otherwise it’s a boardgame and your character becomes a game piece to move, nothing more.

You can roleplay in many different ways, and one that leads to trouble should be rewarded in a meaningful way.

Also, you know what's not worth getting in trouble? Standing in Hold Person. Or lying unconscious. Or rolling a new character while everyone else is playing.

In D&D, you can play only through your character, your character is relatively fragile and you don't have a meta-way to say "ok, that's too deep for me" like in, say, Fate. So it makes sense that most of the players tend to protect their characters from danger, not invite more.

 

[overgeeked]

You can roleplay in many different ways, and one that leads to trouble should be rewarded in a meaningful way.

Yes. And it is. By having an interesting story to engage with through play. That’s infinitely more meaningful than a spendable game token or a temporary bonus. Conflict creates story. Without conflict there’s no story.

Also, you know what's not worth getting in trouble? Standing in Hold Person. Or lying unconscious. Or rolling a new character while everyone else is playing.

Sure, but without a bit of adversity or challenge or difficulty, there’s no point in playing. It’s boring to just win all the time. I’d say not having challenges is more boring than missing a turn here and there.

In D&D, you can play only through your character, your character is relatively fragile and you don't have a meta-way to say "ok, that's too deep for me" like in, say, Fate.

Of course you do. In game you can run away. Out of game you can talk to the DM. Knowing ahead of time that the characters are relatively fragile at lower levels should lead players to make backup characters, just in case. It is a game after all. The dice may not go your way.

So it makes sense that most of the players tend to protect their characters from danger, not invite more.

Then why go out and adventure? Why get into all those fights? I think you’re over emphasizing how precious most players are about their characters. D&D is literally a fantasy adventure game. If you don’t want fantasy adventures you’re playing the wrong game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that the problem many tables have is that it's so heavily dependent on GM fiat. There's no feedback loop really to spend and acquire it like in Fate with its aspects/troubles.

Yeah, I definitely get that. I think this issue can be resolved by house ruling that players claim Inspiration rather than the DM awarding it. You can claim Inspiration up to once per characteristic per session when you’ve fulfilled the criteria for that characteristic. No DM fiat involved, and the DM can simply assume that each player will reliably be able to gain Inspiration 5 times per session.

There's not really a lot of mechanical meat or substance to the mechanic as is. I suspect it's due to a fear of alienating D&D players who loathe meta-currencies like Bennies, Fate points, etc.

I’m sure that’s why they’re so mechanically minimal, though I’m not sure they really need to be more mechanically involved than they are. As written, they’re a decent enough hook to hang more meta-currency mechanics on if you want to, and simple enough to ignore if you want to.

 

[Mistwell]

Any reason this couldn't have been posted in the several recent threads about alignment?

IMO, Alignment should be "posted about in the several threads about alignment" for the win!​

 

[Umbran]

Roleplaying your characteristics doesn’t have to get you into trouble (though admittedly it often will with your flaw). Also, Inspiration is extremely valuable if checks always have a meaningful consequence for failure. If checks are something to be avoided when possible and shored up when unavoidable, gaining Inspiration is well worth acting those characteristics out for.

Yeah, well, there's a big issue in what constitutes meaningful consequences, and whether D&D has scaled "meaningful" properly with Inspiration, as to make it a proper reward for willfully putting a character in a bad spot to earn Inspiration.

Combat being the best example - you've got a check for each and every to hit roll, but the consequence for failure is usually it taking marginally longer to resolve the conflict/combat. In retrospect we can sometimes see which rolls were really do-or-die, but when you are making one or more of them each round, it is hard to predict beforehand which ones really need the boost. And in many cases the swingy d20 will often end up discarding your investment.

This can be contrasted with Fate, with a bell-curve result from dice, and many of the rolls in a conflict rather easily identified as not yet crucial, along with the characters having at least a small pool of points to spend on benefit, rather than a single one-shot of Inspiration.

This is probably why there are several disparate reasons given for GMs to reward Inspiration, and "making trouble for yourself" is only one of them.

 

[loverdrive]

Yes. And it is. By having an interesting story to engage with through play. That’s infinitely more meaningful than a spendable game token or a temporary bonus. Conflict creates story. Without conflict there’s no story.

Yeah, and when there's no incentive to create a conflict, most of the time the only person interested in creating conflict gonna be the GM. Y'know, the only person who's ability to participate isn't dependent on their character's ability to act.

I'm sure there are people who are eager to see their character suffer even without an incentive (I'm one of them), but that doesn't mean that having an incentive doesn't help.

Sure, but without a bit of adversity or challenge or difficulty, there’s no point in playing. It’s boring to just win all the time. I’d say not having challenges is more boring than missing a turn here and there.

I don't know where you've got "not having a challenge" from. There's already a dude who's job is to provide challenge and adversity. Why should I risk my own position to do their job?

When I as a player don't risk anything (like, say, in Fate) -- I'm willing to put my character in a bad spot, break them a few bones, break their will, and see them suffer -- I just know that even in the worst-case scenario I can strike a deal and continue playing. And by getting my character in trouble I actually now have more influence on the game state.

I know have a leverage to get more successes and outright declare more facts. To lose is a winning move.

Losing in D&D is like the opposite of a winning move.

Of course you do. In game you can run away. Out of game you can talk to the DM. Knowing ahead of time that the characters are relatively fragile at lower levels should lead players to make backup characters, just in case. It is a game after all. The dice may not go your way.

"Talking to the GM" isn't a mechanic. I'm 100% at their mercy -- I don't have any bargaining chip other than puppy eyes, and while I can do puppy eyes, I prefer to act with certainty.

Running away is another very uncertain thing, as by standard rules it just doesn't work most of the time (as enemies most of the time has at least the same speed as you, probably more) and chasing rules aren't exactly player-facing.

Then why go out and adventure? Why get into all those fights? I think you’re over emphasizing how precious most players are about their characters. D&D is literally a fantasy adventure game. If you don’t want fantasy adventures you’re playing the wrong game.

99% of the time there's already enough danger imposed by the GM. Creating more is good for the story, but bad for the player.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, well, there's a big issue in what constitutes meaningful consequences, and whether D&D has scaled "meaningful" properly with Inspiration, as to make it a proper reward for willfully putting a character in a bad spot to earn Inspiration.

Where is this idea coming from that you have to put yourself into a bad spot to earn inspiration? That’s not a requirement as far as I can tell, you merely need to act in accordance with your characteristics. Granted, that might get you into trouble in the case of your Flaw, and maybe also in some social challenges, if you picked personality traits that make your character obnoxious. For the most part though, you can easily portray a characteristic without getting yourself into trouble.

Combat being the best example - you've got a check for each and every to hit roll, but the consequence for failure is usually it taking marginally longer to resolve the conflict/combat. In retrospect we can sometimes see which rolls were really do-or-die, but when you are making one or more of them each round, it is hard to predict beforehand which ones really need the boost. And in many cases the swingy d20 will often end up discarding your investment.

Well first of all, the longer a combat takes, the more damage you’re likely to take before it’s over, which if you’re following the adventuring day guidelines can be a serious risk long-term, so I don’t agree that the consequences of a failed attack roll aren’t meaningful. But, moreover, the DM should, in my opinion, be telling the players the DC for checks (or AC for attack targets) and the consequences for failure. If they do this, it’s generally pretty easy to assess when it’s a good idea to spend Inspiration. And, yeah, attack rolls aren’t generally the best place to do so.

This can be contrasted with Fate, with a bell-curve result from dice, and many of the rolls in a conflict rather easily identified as not yet crucial, along with the characters having at least a small pool of points to spend on benefit, rather than a single one-shot of Inspiration.

Sure. Fate is a fine system. It does what it does well. I don’t believe D&D is trying to do what Fate does, and I think D&D does what it does do well too. If you use it the way it tells you to, which in my experience few do.

This is probably why there are several disparate reasons given for GMs to reward Inspiration, and "making trouble for yourself" is only one of them.

For sure.