D&D 5E 5e should include roleplaying incentives as a module.

[B.T.]

With the release of Torchbearer, I've been reading up on Mouseguard and Burning Wheel, and the way they incorporate character traits to encourage roleplaying is brilliant. My favorite bit is traits, which are descriptors of your character (tall, determined, cowardly, clumsy, etc.) What you can do is "tap" these traits to give yourself a bonus or penalty. Giving yourself a bonus is obvious, but giving yourself a penalty hurts you in the short run to get a bonus later on in the game.

 

[Umbran]

FYI: Since this is clearly about 5e, I changed the tag on the thread from "AnyD&D" to "D&D Next".

 

[B.T.]

FYI: Since this is clearly about 5e, I changed the tag on the thread from "AnyD&D" to "D&D Next".

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mike Mearls recently mentioned something like this being a "core rule." I like the idea, and think it would work for some games, but it feels too storygamey for core D&D.

 

[Weather Report]

Mike Mearls recently mentioned something like this being a "core rule."

That depresses me.

 

[the Jester]

With the release of Torchbearer, I've been reading up on Mouseguard and Burning Wheel, and the way they incorporate character traits to encourage roleplaying is brilliant. My favorite bit is traits, which are descriptors of your character (tall, determined, cowardly, clumsy, etc.) What you can do is "tap" these traits to give yourself a bonus or penalty. Giving yourself a bonus is obvious, but giving yourself a penalty hurts you in the short run to get a bonus later on in the game.

Yeah, that sounds like good material for an optional module, but not a core rule to me.

 

[VinylTap]

I don't think its completely unrealistic to have more than just the combat pillar supported in the basic rules. Basic is going to be the 'Beginners box" version of DND? Isn't Standard going to be more of the main focus of the hobby?

Is there a good way to twist Savage World's "bennies" to be a little more consistent with DND?

What about Dungeon World's bond system? It would be interesting to see different bond systems for different party dynamics. One for just a straight up adventure party, and then maybe another one for people serving together on a ship or what not. Establishing a previous history quickly is a sure fire way of getting people to at least think about RPing a character.

 

[GX.Sigma]

1. Many gamers think the interaction phase doesn't need "support" from the rules.
2. If it's an extra subsystem that lots of people don't need that sits on top of the basic rules to support a certain style of play, that's pretty much the definition of something that should be optional.
3. The main issue for me: metagame incentives push the game to be less of an "adventure game" and more of a "story game," which isn't what I personally want out of D&D.

 

[Umbran]

2. If it's an extra subsystem that lots of people don't need that sits on top of the basic rules to support a certain style of play, that's pretty much the definition of something that should be optional.

With respect - all rules are optional. Every single one of them is optional. The entire game is optional. The question of whether it should be in core or not should not is really a question of what should be represented in supplementary materials by default. So, adventures, for example - if you don't include it in core, then any GM who wants to use it will have to patch it into every published adventure themselves.

3. The main issue for me: metagame incentives push the game to be less of an "adventure game" and more of a "story game," which isn't what I personally want out of D&D.

I've seen this a great deal. I don't know your personal experience, but mostly, I see it from folks who have not given something like (FATE-based) "Spirit of the Century" or its like a good try. In practice, some of these mechanics work smoothly enough that they blend in seamlessly to the adventure - the mechanics you're calling upon are things that are closely tied to who or what your character is. In D&D, you may say, "I get +2 on my roll because I have Obscure Feat #17!" (as if this isn't somehow metagame?). In another system you may say, "I get +2 because I'm, 'The best shot east of the Mississippi'!" In effect, it can be more immersive and adventurey than the usual D&D counterpart.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3. The main issue for me: metagame incentives push the game to be less of an "adventure game" and more of a "story game," which isn't what I personally want out of D&D.

Isn't xp for gold a metagame incentive?