D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[Ovinomancer]

BIFTs are like an extremely watered down version of the traits from Fate. Hence, a mechanic that encourages you to play your BIFTs for a mechanical reward encourages narrative, in the same sense that Fate does. That's not to say that it's anywhere in the same ballpark as Fate (it isn't), but it's leagues ahead of Monopoly in this sense (since Monopoly has literally nothing).

Again, not sure how you're using narrative, because what you propose here is just incentive to playing to your agreed character traits, which isn't the same thing at all. FATE changes the narrative when a compel happens -- something in the fiction occurs that would not have otherwise occurred and now binds future resolution. That's not the same thing as offering an Inspiration point when a player does acts according to their BIFTs -- this is entirely toothless and just rewards putting something on your sheet that's easy to act. A Barbarian with a "I get mad" trait earns the benny every time they're just doing something they would do anyway. A clever player can write BIFTs that require zero risk. There's no teeth here -- which is why you see changes to this system in any game that actually tries to leverage them, and that's not 5e as your presenting it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Again, not sure how you're using narrative, because what you propose here is just incentive to playing to your agreed character traits, which isn't the same thing at all. FATE changes the narrative when a compel happens -- something in the fiction occurs that would not have otherwise occurred and now binds future resolution. That's not the same thing as offering an Inspiration point when a player does acts according to their BIFTs -- this is entirely toothless and just rewards putting something on your sheet that's easy to act. A Barbarian with a "I get mad" trait earns the benny every time they're just doing something they would do anyway. A clever player can write BIFTs that require zero risk. There's no teeth here -- which is why you see changes to this system in any game that actually tries to leverage them, and that's not 5e as your presenting it.

A clever Fate player can also write ideal traits - the rules even talk about this and explain that while it is technically possible, it isn't in the spirit of the rules, and ultimately subverts the fun of the experience.

Yeah, the Fate implemention is better in basically every way imaginable. Inspiration is a stone wheel compared to Fate's modern tire. However, I would say that it is nonetheless a mechanical tie-in intended to encourage narrative choices, irrespective of how primitive it is compared to better developed versions of such mechanics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A clever Fate player can also write ideal traits - the rules even talk about this and explain that while it is technically possible, it isn't in the spirit of the rules, and ultimately subverts the fun of the experience.

Yes, this is violating the principles of play -- which should be viewed as rules, not suggestions -- and is bad faith play. It is not so in 5e, at all, because there is no principle or guidance that suggests that BIFTs should be anything other than a tool for the player to describe his character further, and, if they entertain the GM with their play, an excuse for the GM to give a minor mechanical benny.

Yeah, the Fate implemention is better in basically every way imaginable. Inspiration is a stone wheel compared to Fate's modern tire. However, I would say that it is nonetheless a mechanical tie-in intended to encourage narrative choices, irrespective of how primitive it is compared to better developed versions of such mechanics.

Better as a wheel is better than your face, when placed on a wagon. Pointing to BIFTs and Inspiration as how 5e supports narrative play is similarly very badly matched. You could use your face in place of a wheel on a wagon, sure, but it's not like saying your face supports wagons is terribly useful statement. BIFTs supporting narrative play is just as useless a statement for actual effect. The least integrated, mildest form, least liked subsystem as 5e's ability to support narrative play is, at best, not a great position to stake the claim on.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, this is violating the principles of play -- which should be viewed as rules, not suggestions -- and is bad faith play. It is not so in 5e, at all, because there is no principle or guidance that suggests that BIFTs should be anything other than a tool for the player to describe his character further, and, if they entertain the GM with their play, an excuse for the GM to give a minor mechanical benny.

Better as a wheel is better than your face, when placed on a wagon. Pointing to BIFTs and Inspiration as how 5e supports narrative play is similarly very badly matched. You could use your face in place of a wheel on a wagon, sure, but it's not like saying your face supports wagons is terribly useful statement. BIFTs supporting narrative play is just as useless a statement for actual effect. The least integrated, mildest form, least liked subsystem as 5e's ability to support narrative play is, at best, not a great position to stake the claim on.

So you assert that Inspiration (and by extension BIFTs) in no way, shape, or form support or encourage narrative play, whatsoever?

I consider it blatantly obvious that it is designed to encourage narrative play. If you think this is the equivalent of Monopoly, wherein there is literally nothing to promote narrative play, then I suspect there is nothing more for us to discuss.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you assert that Inspiration (and by extension BIFTs) in no way, shape, or form support or encourage narrative play, whatsoever?

Inspiration does not, at all, do anything for narrative play, yes.

Rewarding playing of BIFTs is about as useful to narrative play as using your face as a wagon wheel, which is to say some very small amount and not recommended.

I consider it blatantly obvious that it is designed to encourage narrative play. If you think this is the equivalent of Monopoly, wherein there is literally nothing to promote narrative play, then I suspect there is nothing more for us to discuss.

I thought so, too, on first read, but then my experience with the system -- trying to use it to do these things, and even making changes to enhance it's capabilities -- showed me that it doesn't work at all. It has no teeth, what it does is cosmetic at best, and it doesn't encourage any real changes in the fiction. It doesn't do this because the GM has no way to invoke BIFTs with the rules, and there's no requirements on the player as to how a BIFT actually functions. Instead, the only thing in the rules is that the GM may grant Inspiration to a player that roleplays a BIFT well. Okay, that's terrible, it does nothing to encourage any play because the trigger is in the GM's grey matter, so I, as a player, can feel that I just knocked it out of the park and the GM might not even notice, much less agree. That's not a virtuous reward cycle.

No, what you're talking about is using this terrible subsystem in a way the system doesn't advocate, which is the GM engaging tightly with the BIFTs and encouraging playing to them and pre-emptively offering Inspiration. Except, this isn't the system in the book -- it's the GM doing their own thing. You can tell this because it if were more aggressive, you'd be hearing all about it in thread from people that dislike that kind of thing (seemingly a large and vocal plurality). "I have to offer my players metacurrency to just play their characters!!?!" Yeah, it's not there.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Inspiration does not, at all, do anything for narrative play, yes.

Rewarding playing of BIFTs is about as useful to narrative play as using your face as a wagon wheel, which is to say some very small amount and not recommended.

I thought so, too, on first read, but then my experience with the system -- trying to use it to do these things, and even making changes to enhance it's capabilities -- showed me that it doesn't work at all. It has no teeth, what it does is cosmetic at best, and it doesn't encourage any real changes in the fiction. It doesn't do this because the GM has no way to invoke BIFTs with the rules, and there's no requirements on the player as to how a BIFT actually functions. Instead, the only thing in the rules is that the GM may grant Inspiration to a player that roleplays a BIFT well. Okay, that's terrible, it does nothing to encourage any play because the trigger is in the GM's grey matter, so I, as a player, can feel that I just knocked it out of the park and the GM might not even notice, much less agree. That's not a virtuous reward cycle.

No, what you're talking about is using this terrible subsystem in a way the system doesn't advocate, which is the GM engaging tightly with the BIFTs and encouraging playing to them and pre-emptively offering Inspiration. Except, this isn't the system in the book -- it's the GM doing their own thing. You can tell this because it if were more aggressive, you'd be hearing all about it in thread from people that dislike that kind of thing (seemingly a large and vocal plurality). "I have to offer my players metacurrency to just play their characters!!?!" Yeah, it's not there.

I disagree. I don't think it does a huge amount to encourage narrative play. Certainly more than nothing though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. I don't think it does a huge amount to encourage narrative play. Certainly more than nothing though.

Using your face as a wagon wheel does more than nothing.

And, again, for the third time (three times asked!), what are you considering narrative play?

 

[pogre]

"Best Practices" is a phrase likely to get me to avoid the next thing you say. To be true, it is almost certainly going to be so general and obvious to anyone who has run the game for a while or it is going to veer into so called bad-wrong-fun lectures.

youtubers posting titles like 10 things NEWBIE DMs get wrong or DON'T BE A NEWBIE DM - don't work for me.

@el-remmen published a little newsletter/zine and I think it was titled something like "How I run the game." If I got that wrong, hopefully, el-remmen will correct me.

That's really appealing to me. Maybe there are a few things someone else does in their campaigns I think will appeal to my table. I find those kind of exchanges much more interesting and less bogged down in terminology and emotional responses. I particularly like to know why you do something and why it works for your table.

I have stolen dozen of ideas from DMs over the years - a lot of it from here on ENWorld. I appreciate those discussions most of all.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Using your face as a wagon wheel does more than nothing.

And, again, for the third time (three times asked!), what are you considering narrative play?

I'm guessing you've never seen a wagon then. Using your face in place of a wagon wheel would be counterproductive.

I would consider Critical Roll an example of a 5e narrative game.

 

[Yora]

youtubers posting titles like 10 things NEWBIE DMs get wrong or DON'T BE A NEWBIE DM - don't work for me.

Are you a newbie DM?