D&D (2024) Inspiration From Nat 20 Will Bog Down The Game

[Li Shenron]

Pick a fight > roll many d20 > pass Inspiration to allies > everybody has Inspiration.

It sounds a bit like the early suggestion of freely awarding advantage to players who did a good roleplay of what they were doing, which pretty much leads to advantage bloat.

Inspiration on a nat 20 is one of the biggest dealbreakers for me, they'd better present it as an optional rule. In my games I either don't use Inspiration at all, or use it very scarcily (typically only as a consolation prize to a player who purposefully made a sacrifice to save another or to roleplay a flaw of their PC, etc...). It's part of our playstyle. This rule forces everyone to use Inspiration.

 

[Mistwell]

So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you think it might do. This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment! Try it out! See what happens!

Good thought. I think I will.

 

[Mistwell]

That's a really insensitive thing to say. Some of us are way too busy posting on forums to sit around playing games.

I've got two games a week and used to have three which, in theory, will return next season. There's only so many hours I can devote to playing a week with a full time job and family and younger kid

 

[pnewman]

I'm struggling to see what the issue is or how this puts the GM in a position anymore difficult than before.

Because it creates a much, much more confrontational system in which any time a DM does not let a player roll for whatever they are doing the player will assume that the DM is deliberately nerfing their power. They will respond in a hostile manner, killing any fun the game had. I'm really not sure that I would ever want to DM a game with these rules unless I was getting paid for it.

 

[NotAYakk]

I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat.

I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables.

If you get Inspiration from a natural 20 for any type of check, and you have reasons to use Inspiration more (both things stated by Crawford), then one unintended consequence is an incentive for players to be rolling a lot more d20s. Because it's just a 5% chance of rolling a natural 20, so the more d20s you roll, the more often you will achieve that natural 20 to generate more inspiration.

If your players right now don't check every door they encounter first to listen to see what they can hear behind it (Perception) then to check for traps (often Investigation), they will have an incentive to do that more often now. If they don't try to identify every religious symbol on a wall (Religion) or mural they encounter (History) or every tune they hear (Performance) or medicinal herb they find (Medicine) or which way is north (Survival) and on and on, they have that incentive to make those checks more often now. And most of these have very little risk involved in rolling a natural 1 and failing them.

And some of that might be fun of course and engage the players in the setting more. But I suspect a lot of it will be a waste of time.

And you might be thinking "But my players wouldn't do that." Great. Some players will. And their benefitting from it will incentivize others do to it more as well.

I just don't think a natural 20 generating Inspiration on an out-of-combat skill check is a good idea for the time management of a game. There should be some limitations placed on this concept, and I'd suggest the limitation should be that you're making the check under some sort of pressure where failure can have some meaningful cost in terms of your PC resources or enemy threats, etc. is required for a natural 20 to trigger Inspiration granting.

What do you guys think? Is this concern unwarranted? Is there a better way to deal with it? Am I reading these playtest rules wrong?

The DM determines when a check is warranted.

They listen at the door. Ok; you hear nothing. Or maybe you hear orcs. Whatever. They identify a religious symbol. Seems legit, it is X.

Neither of these really need a roll.

Basically, it means that the DM should only call for a roll when there are stakes worth at least a 5% inspiration. A lot more "DM just gives the players the information they ask for" and less "roll and see if you are holding the idiot ball" would be great for most D&D tables.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something, and it is plausible, just say yes.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something and it isn't plausible, think up a risk what a failure would mean, then get them to roll the dice.

Everything can have a risk. Listen at the door and fail, and you are convinced the other side is safe, or make a noise when you listen. Identity a religious symbol and fail, and get the wrong religion with completely incorrect associations that will cause problems later.

As a DM, before calling for a d20 Test, make sure the test matters.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you think it might do. This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment! Try it out! See what happens!

I'm implementing the inspiration rules effective immediately, myself. If it's a disaster, I'll know pretty soon. My suspicion is it'll be fine, although it should lead to play feeling more heroic, which isn't to everyone's tastes, given the popularity of critical fumbles.

 

[Bill Zebub]

When Dungeon Masters know that players will have Inspiration more often they will take this into account when designing encounters.

I won’t. There’s just not enough impact to bother with it.

 

[Mistwell]

The DM determines when a check is warranted.

They listen at the door. Ok; you hear nothing. Or maybe you hear orcs. Whatever. They identify a religious symbol. Seems legit, it is X.

Neither of these really need a roll.

Basically, it means that the DM should only call for a roll when there are stakes worth at least a 5% inspiration. A lot more "DM just gives the players the information they ask for" and less "roll and see if you are holding the idiot ball" would be great for most D&D tables.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something, and it is plausible, just say yes.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something and it isn't plausible, think up a risk what a failure would mean, then get them to roll the dice.

Everything can have a risk. Listen at the door and fail, and you are convinced the other side is safe, or make a noise when you listen. Identity a religious symbol and fail, and get the wrong religion with completely incorrect associations that will cause problems later.

As a DM, before calling for a d20 Test, make sure the test matters.

We discussed your responses already upthread, with replies. In sum: players will know there is something they need to look out for if you call for a check, under your system. You system defeats the purpose of secret doors, traps, etc. because you're only calling for a check when it is relevant, immediately notifying your players regardless of their roll there is definitely something to find. Otherwise they say "I check the door for traps" and you answer with "No need to roll there is nothing." Which is its own problem if you disallow checks when there isn't anything to find.

 

[Sir Brennen]

How about this: if players "attack a chair" so they could make an attack roll, and get a 20, would you give Inspiration? If they constantly swat at ordinary flies with their sword, how about then? Bag of rats scenarios?

No, they shouldn't, because these are inconsequential actions, so don't deserve a significant reward for an outstanding success. They're simply not potentially inspiring actions.

Same with constant searching to metagame a reward. If they get a 20, but there was nothing to find, how is it "inspiring" to find nothing? It was an inconsequential action, as above. And you haven't spoiled or telegraphed anything, because they've already gotten a successful roll.

So if the players are fishing for nat 20s with constantly repeated actions, if the GM even bothers to ask for a roll, then after a couple of un-Inspiring critical rolls, they'll go back to their normal and appropriate usage of such actions. Only rolls which actually move the narrative forward in some way should be rewarded.

Really, the base argument is more effective in pointing out flaws with the whole concept of players making the rolls to find traps and secret doors. Some DMs use the PCs' Passive Perception and make a secret roll against that or roll the player's skill for them in secret. The former would eliminate the whole Natural 20 issue altogether, while the latter would be a DM judgement call, IMO.

 

[Bill Zebub]

How about this: if players "attack a chair" so they could make an attack roll, and get a 20, would you give Inspiration? If they constantly swat at ordinary flies with their sword, how about then? Bag of rats scenarios?

No, they shouldn't, because these are inconsequential actions, so don't deserve a significant reward for an outstanding success. They're simply not potentially inspiring actions.

Same with constant searching to metagame a reward. If they get a 20, but there was nothing to find, how is it "inspiring" to find nothing? It was an inconsequential action, as above. And you haven't spoiled or telegraphed anything, because they've already gotten a successful roll.

So if the players are fishing for nat 20s with constantly repeated actions, if the GM even bothers to ask for a roll, then after a couple of un-Inspiring critical rolls, they'll go back to their normal and appropriate usage of such actions. Only rolls which actually move the narrative forward in some way should be rewarded.

Really, the base argument is more effective in pointing out flaws with the whole concept of players making the rolls to find traps and secret doors. Some DMs use the PCs' Passive Perception and make a secret roll against that or roll the player's skill for them in secret. The former would eliminate the whole Natural 20 issue altogether, while the latter would be a DM judgement call, IMO.

If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.