D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[TwoSix]

I have now realized that the best design involves having people engaged mechanically, narratively, and realistically as well, which is why I have created additional house rules that allow me to throw things at the players during the game.

They don't make a "sorry your coach just got crushed by two tons of irony" Hallmark card.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying a game where everyone is engaged both mechanically and narratively is better, and any rule that pushes for both of those aspects to be engaged simultaneously makes the game design stronger.

Maybe better for you. I want my PC's personality to grow organically from backstory and play. BIFTs may give me some ideas but 90% of the time I ignore them.

Other systems may work better for you, they would not add to my enjoyment of the game. From discussions I've had with other people, I'm not alone.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

They don't make a "sorry your coach just got crushed by two tons of irony" Hallmark card.

 

[Oofta]

If the only thing you want out of characterization is some entertaining play-acting at the table, then, sure, systems that enable making character more important to play would be imposing.

If you want character to be something play is about, ways for the players to leverage character into play and push it are very helpful.

BIFTs are more in line with the former, as they do very little for the latter.

Which is my push back. I don't want the characterization to have any mechanical game rule impact. It, for me, would distract from the RP aspects of the game instead of enhancing it. If I'm thinking about what my character should say in order to check off a box or satisfy some criteria then I'm not thinking about how my PC would think or respond organically.

 

[jayoungr]

The Dungeon Masters Guide instructs Dungeon Masters to "consider granting advantage when a player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task."

Is it abhorrent to reward creativity in this way? Does it taste like approval-cookie?

Not so much. Let me explain why I hate approval-cookies.

There's a game called Tenra Bansho Zero where virtually everything you do is dependent on currency that you earn by impressing the other players and GM into giving it to you. I played it once with two other PCs. I made a nice shounen-anime-style rifle specialist that I thought I would enjoy playing. The other two made madcap comedy characters. They spent the whole session trying to outdo each other in hilariousness and getting showered with currency every time either one of them opened their mouths. I was then stuck as the lone "straight man" in the group and gained the currency that fueled my moves at a far slower rate than the others. It seemed pretty clear that they were giving it to me for ordinary things when they remembered to, mostly out of pity because they realized I didn't have any, rather than because they genuinely were impressed by anything I did.

And once I realized this was happening, it just made me insecure and self-conscious about everything I did. It got me thinking in terms of "How can I get their attention and make them give me currency?" instead of being actually immersed in the story or my character. It made me count how many resources I was getting in comparison to the others and brood about what that meant about my roleplaying skills, or at least their opinion of my roleplaying skills. It was an extremely unhappy gaming experience for me, and I really don't want to go anywhere near repeating it. So I shy away from any mechanic that's fueled by rewards for "good roleplaying," especially when that reward fuels an unrelated task somewhere down the line. Like, for example, the "bennies" in Savage Worlds.

So getting advantage on a specific task for coming up with ways to tip circumstances in my favor doesn't bother me. But if the GM starts saying things like "You did a great job talking about your sad past with the barmaid just now--take inspiration," that starts to worry me. And if the GM hands out advantage for cracking jokes or otherwise entertaining the table, that definitely tastes like approval-cookie. I'm sure those are effective tools for some players, but they just set off all my alarm bells.

 

[jayoungr]

And in the later sessions...do they become more relevant and-or enforced, or less? If less, or not at all, then we're in agreement here.

I don't really do much with them at all as a GM. I figure they're there to be a roleplaying tool for the players.

 

[Oofta]

Not so much. Let me explain why I hate approval-cookies.

There's a game called Tenra Bansho Zero where virtually everything you do is dependent on currency that you earn by impressing the other players and GM into giving it to you. I played it once with two other PCs. I made a nice shounen-anime-style rifle specialist that I thought I would enjoy playing. The other two made madcap comedy characters. They spent the whole session trying to outdo each other in hilariousness and getting showered with currency every time either one of them opened their mouths. I was then stuck as the lone "straight man" in the group and gained the currency that fueled my moves at a far slower rate than the others. It seemed pretty clear that they were giving it to me for ordinary things when they remembered to, mostly out of pity because they realized I didn't have any, rather than because they genuinely were impressed by anything I did.

And once I realized this was happening, it just made me insecure and self-conscious about everything I did. It got me thinking in terms of "How can I get their attention and make them give me currency?" instead of being actually immersed in the story or my character. It made me count how many resources I was getting in comparison to the others and brood about what that meant about my roleplaying skills, or at least their opinion of my roleplaying skills. It was an extremely unhappy gaming experience for me, and I really don't want to go anywhere near repeating it. So I shy away from any mechanic that's fueled by rewards for "good roleplaying," especially when that reward fuels an unrelated task somewhere down the line. Like, for example, the "bennies" in Savage Worlds.

So getting advantage on a specific task for coming up with ways to tip circumstances in my favor doesn't bother me. But if the GM starts saying things like "You did a great job talking about your sad past with the barmaid just now--take inspiration," that starts to worry me. And if the GM hands out advantage for cracking jokes or otherwise entertaining the table, that definitely tastes like approval-cookie. I'm sure those are effective tools for some players, but they just set off all my alarm bells.

Some people like the spotlight, others don't. Some people go all-in on expressing their character, others feel uncomfortable doing it.

I want to accommodate both types of players.

 

[jayoungr]

Some people like the spotlight, others don't. Some people go all-in on expressing their character, others feel uncomfortable doing it.

It's not that I don't like the spotlight. It's that I don't like feeling like I'm competing with the other players in what is supposed to be a cooperative game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not so much. Let me explain why I hate approval-cookies.

There's a game called Tenra Bansho Zero where virtually everything you do is dependent on currency that you earn by impressing the other players and GM into giving it to you. I played it once with two other PCs. I made a nice shounen-anime-style rifle specialist that I thought I would enjoy playing. The other two made madcap comedy characters. They spent the whole session trying to outdo each other in hilariousness and getting showered with currency every time either one of them opened their mouths. I was then stuck as the lone "straight man" in the group and gained the currency that fueled my moves at a far slower rate than the others. It seemed pretty clear that they were giving it to me for ordinary things when they remembered to, mostly out of pity because they realized I didn't have any, rather than because they genuinely were impressed by anything I did.

And once I realized this was happening, it just made me insecure and self-conscious about everything I did. It got me thinking in terms of "How can I get their attention and make them give me currency?" instead of being actually immersed in the story or my character. It made me count how many resources I was getting in comparison to the others and brood about what that meant about my roleplaying skills, or at least their opinion of my roleplaying skills. It was an extremely unhappy gaming experience for me, and I really don't want to go anywhere near repeating it. So I shy away from any mechanic that's fueled by rewards for "good roleplaying," especially when that reward fuels an unrelated task somewhere down the line. Like, for example, the "bennies" in Savage Worlds.

So getting advantage on a specific task for coming up with ways to tip circumstances in my favor doesn't bother me. But if the GM starts saying things like "You did a great job talking about your sad past with the barmaid just now--take inspiration," that starts to worry me. And if the GM hands out advantage for cracking jokes or otherwise entertaining the table, that definitely tastes like approval-cookie. I'm sure those are effective tools for some players, but they just set off all my alarm bells.

I haven’t really been following this thread since it’s recent revival, but I wanted to pop in to say I’m with you on this. I’m fine with structured mechanics like background characteristics in D&D or Virtue and Vice in CofD, but I can’t stand it when the game encourages the DM to hand out bennies at their discretion for “good roleplaying” or “clever ideas” or what have you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They are instead excuses to do something disruptive or jarring or working against any illusion of group cohesion as if the player has no agency and the character rather than the player is the one driving the train.

While I think I get where you're coming from here, to some extent, any degree of genuine characterization is going to, at least occasionally, be disruptive and work against group cohesion. That's intrinsic in characters being anything but a cog in a machine.

The key is making sure characterization isn't chosen that makes you question why the person is in the group, or why they're tolerated in it if they have a personal reason. You can see problems with this with some types of characterization, but that doesn't mean its necessarily bad for characterization to occasionally put the PC and his group at odds. It just means its one of those things that only works in small doses.