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

[Oofta]

Sorry, but this isn't actually having that character DO anything, it's just play-acting. Which is one of my complaints about these systems -- they don't encourage actual changes in play, they encourage superficial changes at the play-acting level. Because, if we analyze that scenario for actual impacts, what happens is the character meekly goes along with the group, but makes some funny noises along the way. This isn't actually engaging a flaw, it's just taking a prompt to do some play-acting and pretend we've done something impactful with our character.

And, to be perfectly clear, this is fine. Honestly, it's the expectation at a normal D&D table and it's entertaining, so there's nothing bad here. The point I'm making isn't that this is weak-sauce or terrible, because it's not, but that it's not actually engaging in playing a character that has a flaw in any meaningful way. Again, you don't have to, but the claim is that BIFTs do this -- they engage character in meaningful ways. This example shows this to be strongly overstated -- there's nothing meaningful here outside the entertainment variety. Now, D&D is structurally a team game where you have to belong to the group consensus to advance play (broadly speaking), so having systems that actively promote characterization is something that is a hinderance to this. BIFTs, as the tacked on kluge they are, try to suggest that you do get some individuality in D&D, but they don't provide any way to actually do this, so the default is that you're expected to use BIFTs in service of the team goal approach, not against it. This rips the meaning out of them, and they become nothing but glorified prompts from occasional play-acting and not actual characterizations.

In theory, there is mechanical carrot for playing BIFTs called inspiration. In practice, it rarely happens at most tables.

However, personally I never remember them because there's too much going on with 6 PCs at my table. I guess I could have players claim them, but I'm not sure I want people thinking of what their PC does in terms of what will get them inspiration.

 

[Asisreo]

Sorry, but this isn't actually having that character DO anything, it's just play-acting. Which is one of my complaints about these systems -- they don't encourage actual changes in play, they encourage superficial changes at the play-acting level. Because, if we analyze that scenario for actual impacts, what happens is the character meekly goes along with the group, but makes some funny noises along the way. This isn't actually engaging a flaw, it's just taking a prompt to do some play-acting and pretend we've done something impactful with our character.

And, to be perfectly clear, this is fine. Honestly, it's the expectation at a normal D&D table and it's entertaining, so there's nothing bad here. The point I'm making isn't that this is weak-sauce or terrible, because it's not, but that it's not actually engaging in playing a character that has a flaw in any meaningful way. Again, you don't have to, but the claim is that BIFTs do this -- they engage character in meaningful ways. This example shows this to be strongly overstated -- there's nothing meaningful here outside the entertainment variety. Now, D&D is structurally a team game where you have to belong to the group consensus to advance play (broadly speaking), so having systems that actively promote characterization is something that is a hinderance to this. BIFTs, as the tacked on kluge they are, try to suggest that you do get some individuality in D&D, but they don't provide any way to actually do this, so the default is that you're expected to use BIFTs in service of the team goal approach, not against it. This rips the meaning out of them, and they become nothing but glorified prompts from occasional play-acting and not actual characterizations.

Engagement can't be forced by these traits, but why should we force engagement? Some people don't want to engage more than their comfort level and by forcing it, you're making the play experience more uncomfortable.

I know people that are happy to be in the background of a game aside from a few remarks or quips of characterization, at least until combat. There's nothing wrong with that and I don't think forced engagement is going to make the game fun for them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Engagement can't be forced by these traits, but why should we force engagement? Some people don't want to engage more than their comfort level and by forcing it, you're making the play experience more uncomfortable.

I know people that are happy to be in the background of a game aside from a few remarks or quips of characterization, at least until combat. There's nothing wrong with that and I don't think forced engagement is going to make the game fun for them.

And you've move the goalpost, but poorly, in that you're still forcing engagement, just engagement with the team-play consensus building concept versus playing a character that you've chosen. I mean, if I've made the choices about my character, how is it forcing engagement, again? Is it forcing engagement when I choose to use a weapon my character is not proficient with and so suffers disadvantage?

You're making an artificial distinction here -- I'm forced to engage with other mechanical traits of my character that have lasting impact on play, but it's bad to expect character traits to have any such impact or engagement because reasons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In theory, there is mechanical carrot for playing BIFTs called inspiration. In practice, it rarely happens at most tables.

However, personally I never remember them because there's too much going on with 6 PCs at my table. I guess I could have players claim them, but I'm not sure I want people thinking of what their PC does in terms of what will get them inspiration.

Thanks, I've made that point repeatedly in this thread, but it's good to see it reinforced.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because apparently some people have been burned too greatly before and won't ever let themselves be burned again. That's the only reason I can think of that sets some people off. Mention the name Drizzt and immediately some people start ranting their hatred because apparently they were the table that actually had their friends play dual-wielding drow over and over again seventy-five times over until the person couldn't take it anymore. Or that they actually had their friends group absolutely destroyed because someone played a "kender" and now they can't hear that word without going into fits.

So now they've thrown up these massive defense shields to defend against the game should it ever deign to conspire against them and make all players they might play with in the future horrendous and horrible fiends destined to destroy their love of the game.

It doesn't take a lot of encounters with players who seem to be doing their best to just get around anything constraining them, or GMs who use character definition as a bludgeon to keep people in line, for it to leave a mark. Same applies to other elements of game play, and, frankly, just life: people don't assume good behavior because they've seen enough bad behavior. And its not always something you see coming.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm inclined to push your thinking on how they don't really require the player to make any effort toward working with the Dungeon Master. The DM is the lead storyteller and referee. There is no game if players are not working with them. If you believe that 5th Edition is about rulings not rules, the statement you've made here challenges that belief.

I'm no sure what there is to push. I explained that they don't do this this & this, fail at these things, and are lacking like so at least once or twice to be net with "that's just your opinion I reject all of that as unworthy of discussion and think they are great". If you look at systems like fate BiTD & likely others where similar systems exist the GM has ways to point at a player's BITS equivalents being relevant to a situation & force the player to either spend a resource & make an excuse to ignore it or do something fitting the combination of aspect & situation. That is so deeply mechanically woven into the mechanics even beyond that that players proactively look for ways to use their aspects without being forced including spending some of that same resource in order to use them in powerful ways. BITS by comparison are lacking in anything like that, completely optional to use, able to be ignored with no issue, regularly describing something meaningless, & after all of that can be used in disruptive ways because "[no offense but] my character has x BITF so he/she does Y". Then BITS tops all of that off by claiming they are to be d&d5e's tool described the same as those aspects.

Saying the dm is in charge is great and all, but that gets into trouble with 5e stripping so much power from the gm, dumping so much power into the classes themselves, & leaving the GM with an empty quiver beside an empty toolbox rather than risk maybe having a bad (usually new) gm abuse them while learning to be a better on.

 

[mrpopstar]

Yes, I am aware. I have read the books. It’s still trash. And it has been for decades.

Yikes.

I'm sorry, but how is something that the player is free to ignore and only engage with when it benefits them solving this problem? How does it act on the situation to come to a resolution? You're suggesting there's some power here that is utterly lacking. Do you mean that the GM reminds the players how they're supposed to play their character?

Players are free to ignore any of the following and only engage when it benefits them:

• languages they speak
• armor proficiencies
• weapon proficiencies
• tool proficiencies
• spells they can cast
• rituals they can cast
• features they can use after a rest
• skill proficiencies
• equipment they carry
• wealth they have
• services and hirelings
• mounts they can ride
• activities they might undertake while traveling
• downtime activities
• available combat actions

I'd hate to point at any of these in a given situation where they might be useful for fear of reminding anyone how to play their character (gasp!).

Ha! This is one of the primary arguments that comes out -- be a team player first! -- that absolutely undercuts any argument that BIFTs are valued character building tools. Unless BIFTs are aligned to the team, there's conflict, and now the argument to be a good team player means that you should discard your BIFTs when they do not support your team.

I'm trying to imagine the tables you're sitting at because all of the conflict you describe is just alien to my experience with the game. Who is it that behaves so terribly? I'd honestly like to know so I can avoid them should I encounter them in the wild.

Say, for instance, I have a character that has the ideal from above -- good: respect. But, I also have a flaw that I'm quick to violence and think violence can solve problems. The scene in the example unfolds. Now, instead of a choice between whether or not the angel or devil gets their way in my character, I have to step back and think of which choice is the best team choice. That's certainly not about being my character, is it?

Respect is the thing your character believes in most strongly, though they're extremely hot-headed and someone else can use that to exploit them or cause them to act against their best interests.

There's no angel versus devil dichotomy. You've described someone who will smack you up if they see you disrespecting a gentle soul, but will only use the amount of force necessary to straighten you out.

In theory, there is mechanical carrot for playing BIFTs called inspiration. In practice, it rarely happens at most tables.

However, personally I never remember them because there's too much going on with 6 PCs at my table. I guess I could have players claim them, but I'm not sure I want people thinking of what their PC does in terms of what will get them inspiration.

Inspiration is everywhere when campaigns first start because it helps to get everyone on the same page about the game we all want to be playing. As time goes on, it really only makes a showing in those awesome moments where something cool happens and there's magic in the air.

My big takeaway from this thread is that I'm incredibly lucky to play with the people I play with. There's so many magical moments!

I'm no sure what there is to push. I explained that they don't do this this & this, fail at these things, and are lacking like so at least once or twice to be net with "that's just your opinion I reject all of that as unworthy of discussion and think they are great". If you look at systems like fate BiTD & likely others where similar systems exist the GM has ways to point at a player's BITS equivalents being relevant to a situation & force the player to either spend a resource & make an excuse to ignore it or do something fitting the combination of aspect & situation. That is so deeply mechanically woven into the mechanics even beyond that that players proactively look for ways to use their aspects without being forced including spending some of that same resource in order to use them in powerful ways. BITS by comparison are lacking in anything like that, completely optional to use, able to be ignored with no issue, regularly describing something meaningless, & after all of that can be used in disruptive ways because "[no offense but] my character has x BITF so he/she does Y". Then BITS tops all of that off by claiming they are to be d&d5e's tool described the same as those aspects.

I'm simply asking you to reconsider in light of D&D not being any of those other games. It's clear that you have a fixed mindset on this, so I won't try and push your thinking anymore.

Saying the dm is in charge is great and all, but that gets into trouble with 5e stripping so much power from the gm, dumping so much power into the classes themselves, & leaving the GM with an empty quiver beside an empty toolbox rather than risk maybe having a bad (usually new) gm abuse them while learning to be a better on.

I've not encountered this argument about 5e stripping power from the DM, but we'll have to discuss that in a different thread.

Edit: Formatting

 

[Oofta]

...
My big takeaway from this thread is that I'm incredibly lucky to play with the people I play with. There's so many magical moments!



I'm simply asking you to reconsider in light of D&D not being any of those other games. It's clear that you have a fixed mindset on this, so I won't try and push your thinking anymore.


I've not encountered this argument about 5e stripping power from the DM, but we'll have to discuss that in a different thread.

All I can say is that we also have a lot of fun, laughs and, occasionally, drama. We just don't need a mechanical carrot or stick to get there. People let me know either in character or outside of the what they want, we discuss it, and it gets worked in. Easy peasy.

If a more systematic approach works for you, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Just that there's more than one way to achieve the goal.

 

[Asisreo]

All I can say is that we also have a lot of fun, laughs and, occasionally, drama. We just don't need a mechanical carrot or stick to get there.

This kinda reminds me that these types of debates are silly to begin with. I can have fun with my friends without playing D&D entirely, we just do it because it enhances our fun. Otherwise, we wouldn't bother. Same for people that either engages or disengages with BIFT (Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, Traits) and their uses.

If someone were to say "Everyone should stop playing D&D because its not fun" or "Everyone should play D&D because its the only fun." Those people would be rightfully seen as ridiculous.

I think the same for BIFTs, its a bit ridiculous to want everyone to engage with them if they are obviously doing more harm than good, but I don't think that means its okay to completely remove it from existence.

 

[mrpopstar]

All I can say is that we also have a lot of fun, laughs and, occasionally, drama. We just don't need a mechanical carrot or stick to get there. People let me know either in character or outside of the what they want, we discuss it, and it gets worked in. Easy peasy.

If a more systematic approach works for you, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Just that there's more than one way to achieve the goal.

Oops. My comment about gratitude for my gaming experience wasn't meant to be anything other than a takeaway from observing the whole thread. Please don't read into any subtext or subtle jab aimed at you.