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

[VinylTap]

Are the exploration rules going to be in a module, or are they part of basic/standard?

 

[Rhenny]

I'm always wary about awarding points or bennies for roleplaying. Often it is difficult (and quite subjective) decision, and it could lead to real or perceived favoritism, which will not help the game.

I think roleplaying should be encouraged, but not rewarded.

Still not sure what the best way to encourage it is.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

A simple metagame reward should be in the most basic game and removed as an option. The benefits are strong, plus it provides a platform for further metagame modules to be built upon. I believe that the majority of games will benefit from having such a system.

In my experience, simple metagame rewards can be used to encourage almost any style of play. They work even better when you use a physical object to represent the reward.

 

[MortalPlague]

Everyone keeps complaining that Wizards is only focused on one pillar of the three (combat). Now that they're thinking of adding something to the interaction pillar, a whole bunch of people are up in arms about it.

Me, I'm intrigued to see what it looks like.

 

[Umbran]

I'm always wary about awarding points or bennies for roleplaying. Often it is difficult (and quite subjective) decision, and it could lead to real or perceived favoritism, which will not help the game.

Well, that depends a bit on the implementation. Take FATE as an example. The character has "aspects", which may be semi-mechanical ("Former Heavyweight Boxing Champion") to highly personality based ("scared of his own shadow"). They can be invoked by the player (pay a chip, get a bonus), or by the GM (give the player a chip and create a complication).

Note that the rules specifically state that players can ask the GM, "I'm playing at being 'scared of my own shadow', which is willfully complicating my own life. Am I doing well enough to get a chip?" The rules even state that players may suggest invocations for other players.

Thus, operation of the system lies in both the GM and players - not just the GM. It is also very easy to track how many invocations each player gets, so that it is easy to watch for favoritism or slanted subjectivity.

 

[1of3]

Even simpler is Fanmail: Put a number of chips on the table. Whenever any participant finds a contribution delightful, he or she can hand out a token.

That way it's not only the GM's job.

 

[Umbran]

That way it's not only the GM's job.

There are two potential problems with that sort of mechanic.

1) Favoritism still happens. For example, you can have two players who consistently hand each other chips for things the rest of the group doesn't think merit the benefit

2) There's a bit of a cycle involved - I do something cool. Someone give me a chip. Now, with that bonus, I can do something even more cool, and get another chip. Basically, having chips makes earning chips more likely, so those that get a couple early on can tend to collect them much more quickly than others.

One can dispel that last by simply saying you cannot earn chips for things that you spent chips on, but the favoritism thing can still be an issue.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

Why would it need to be mentioned in an adventure at all, though?

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.

In my experience (a few sessions of Legends of Anglerre), it leads to people making choices because "that would be a cool thing to happen," not because "that's what I/my character would choose to do to maximize my/his/her chances of success." (Or, even worse, making a metagame choice that benefits their character, like "I spend a fate point so the bad guy has a cool sword") I'm talking specifically about the fate point mechanics here. I am perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong on this count; I haven't really played many games like this.

Isn't xp for gold a metagame incentive?

Not really, since it reinforces the idea that your character's goal is the same as the player's goal--it encourages you to think as your character, since you and your character want the same thing.

XP for killing monsters, on the other hand, does incentivize metagaming (unless your character is a genocide enthusiast).

 

[1of3]

One can dispel that last by simply saying you cannot earn chips for things that you spent chips on, but the favoritism thing can still be an issue.

Indeed. Although I'd answer with Wick #0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQmkS1mJ5Xw

 

[Umbran]

Why would it need to be mentioned in an adventure at all, though?

That would depend upon the mechanic. If, for example, it also applied to NPCs, they'd need to include such for NPCs in an adventure.

In my experience (a few sessions of Legends of Anglerre), it leads to people making choices because "that would be a cool thing to happen," not because "that's what I/my character would choose to do to maximize my/his/her chances of success."

And if that is what the players want to do, who are we to stand in the way?

(Or, even worse, making a metagame choice that benefits their character, like "I spend a fate point so the bad guy has a cool sword") I'm talking specifically about the fate point mechanics here. I am perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong on this count; I haven't really played many games like this.

Okay, specifically in FATE, players can only stipulate *minor* facts, and then only with GM-approval. So, while the player could say the enemy had a cool *looking* sword, they'd not be able to say it was magical.

Indeed. Although I'd answer with Wick #0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQmkS1mJ5Xw

Yes. Pleasantly over-simplified to appear witty and slightly snide ('cause snide is all the rage these days), but lacking all the complexities and nuance of real-world social interaction.