D&D 5E AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e

[Ristamar]

What I worry about if this were implemented is how weird social encounters might get. An NPC is lying to a PC. What, the DM rolls a Deception check against passive Insight, and that's it? If the player says his character doesn't trust the NPC and thinks he's lying, does that grant retroactive advantage, cause a second, active Insight check (against what, the original roll? passive deception?), or what? Maybe it's metagamey, but does the fact that the DM rolled a D20 when the NPC said something tip the player off that a lie is afoot, whereas "can I make an insight check" requires more active participation from the player?

The results of an active NPC roll vs passive PC skill should be treated no differently than the PC actively making a roll vs a passive NPC skill or an opposed roll (i.e. no reroll unless the circumstances change). I might allow a follow-up active check or force the NPC to make a another check at Disadvantage if the player pursues a line of questioning that compromises the NPC's story.

And of course, any time a PC's passive or active check fails, the player can still choose to believe the NPC is lying.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's another thought: get Advantage if you can invoke a bond/trait/etc.

That could be that your bond is "To protect your friends at any price" so you declare that you're going to use your shield to block the (whatever) and try to get in front of your friends. Con or Str, with Advantage.

Or your flaw might be that you will "Save yourself even if you have to betray your friends" so you declare that you're going to try to sneak away unnoticed. Dex, with Advantage.

Etc.

(Yes, this is inspired by The One Ring's playbook.)

http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/

This is still Angry GM, but very useful nonetheless

 

[CapnZapp]

http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/

This is still Angry GM, but very useful nonetheless

And in order to keep my own standards, here's my campaign rule, condensing my personal interpretation of what the link talks about:

Inspiration
You either have or do not have Inspiration (feel free to use a marker as a reminder).

You start every play session with Inspiration. When you have used your Inspiration, you may decide to regain Inspiration. If you don't, you will still regain it at the start of the next play session.

Using Inspiration
When you have Inspiration, you may use it on your own turn. Using inspiration is not an action.

To use Inspiration, motivate and describe your action using one of your Traits, Bonds, Ideals or Flaws. When you do, you get a +5 bonus on any single die roll, and you may immediately move up to 20 feet in any direction. This movement is free and does not count towards your regular movement allowance.

Regaining Inspiration
During a play session, you regain Inspiration by giving in to your Flaws. Motivate and describe your action using one of your Flaws.

You can do this in one of two ways:
• You allow your Flaw to distract you when taking an important action by taking Disadvantage on a significant d20 roll that would otherwise not have it.
• You allow your Flaw to control you by taking an impulsive and dangerous action you would otherwise not have taken.

The GM is the final judge of what counts as "significant" and "impulsive and dangerous", respectively.

 

[Guest 6801328]

http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/

This is still Angry GM, but very useful nonetheless

Yeah, good stuff (honestly I usually agree with about 90% of AngryGM, but his contrived 'voice' wears thin after...well, I was going to say a few essays but really a paragraph or two).

Things I like:
1) The Setback/Inspiration thing
2) Applying the Inspiration/Setback to the thing it, well, applies to. Instead of banking it for future use.
3) Alternate traits, such as "Motivation" instead of "Ideals"

I also like his system of not coming up with traits when you roll the character, and instead coming up with them as they reveal themselves. In some of the debates about roleplaying and metagaming there are some posters who seem to think that your character is described in totality by whatever you write in the background before you even get started. That just sounds awful to me. Imagine if you were watching a movie or reading a book and in the first five minutes or five pages you learned everything about the protagonist that would ever be revealed in that story? Boring.

 

[Bawylie]

AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e

I don't think you should consider the rules tweaks separately. It seems like they have to all be taken together.

So for instance when an NPC lies to a PC, you wouldn't automatically just roll against a passive to determine if the lie was successful. You'd consider what rules to apply, determine whether or not the action was possible, etc etc.

And, ok, sure. Obviously your judgment comes before the mechanics.

But this article and its predecessor are groundwork for whatever subsystems he's going to talk about next.

The group check examples were interesting. Because they ask a DM to consider the situation as an "all or nothing" or "first past the post" kind of deal.

All or nothing - sneaking past the dozing dragon, can the party get past without waking it and avoid its wrath? Under the standard rules each character would check and if a majority of characters passed the stealth check, the party successfully avoided waking the dragon. Under angry's suggestion, only the person worst at stealth would make the check, and everyone else would take actions that presumably would assist their weakest link in passing. Aiding the stealth action, singing a lullaby, making sure the dragon snuggles its owlbear plushy.

Interesting way of looking at a group check. The default rule would be fine, the proposed change would also be fine. It feels a little more character-driven than mechanics-driven and that's interesting to me.

The "first past the post deal" asks us to consider a group check where anyone's success benefit's the whole group. Let's say we're cracking a safe before the mob banker gets back. Normally we only have one character make a check. Maybe with an assist. Under angry's proposal, eligible characters could help out on the main action (i.e. Anyone with proficiency in and possession of thieves' tools can get in on the safe cracking itself) while other characters might involve themselves by other activities. Keeping watch for the mob banker, Evan intercepting and stalling the mob. Whatever whatever. All those thing would circumstantially change the DC when it's time to make the check. But so long as it's made, the whole party gets that sweet mob cash.

Ok, different takes on involving the party and considering group activities. Not bad. Because look at chases.

We're trying to escape the mob boss who is chasing us. That's all or nothing (unless any of you cold blooded characters would leave an ally behind).

We have to catch that rat who scampered off with the one ring! Ok, that's first past the post. Everyone's efforts matter, but only one character jumps on the rat. Everyone else is corralling or baiting or shutting doors so it can't leave the room.

That's obviously not all, but if you play around with various scenarios in your mind, it gets a bit more interesting and fun than the default "if half you guys make it, you win" rule.


-Brad