D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Character Roleplaying Traits, XP as Reward & Inspiration

[DEFCON 1]

Maybe its time we all flood wizards with this question?

Can we get some specifics of what "basic", "standard", and "advanced" actually mean in a practical, how-are-rules-presented-in-the-books sense?

Eh... I suspect it's still too early for them to give us a good read on at least the standard/advanced delineation. While it appears (from the small tidbits we've heard from them recently) that the "basic" game might be relatively set from a rules standpoint... how or why some rules end up being standard versus advanced are probably still up in the air, plus they probably haven't even begun to work on book layout at this point. And once that organizational tactic gets put into place... that could have a profound impact on the delineation too.

Some rules they might think in their heads are meant to be "advanced", but then once they lay the book out they discover that they needs aspects of those rules to be standard because there's something missing in the explanation. Or they have a rule set up to be "standard" with a whole bunch of variants of it planned to be "advanced", and they then figure out that even the standard rule isn't necessary and they ALL get moved to "advanced". Or any other permutation like that.

This is why I do my best not to get all worked up when they demarcate certain rules to certain versions of the game at this point... because the truth is once they decide (if they decide) to release a public playtest packet that is actually formatted in the manner the actual books will be published (so that we can look for spelling errors, missing page numbers, wrong monster stat calculations etc.), THAT'S the point where they will find out where many rules should fall in the basic/standard/advanced scale according to all the players out there.

 

[JeffB]

That indeed was one thing Rodney wrote that confused me a bit too. But as they have not made mention of any real specifics recently of what "basic", "standard", and "advanced" actually mean in a practical, how-are-rules-presented-in-the-books sense... I just chalked it up to a quick toss-off statement that he might not have even realized we would not understand (since the designers and developers are so far ahead of us in the timeline of what things are and are not still in existence in the game.)

Gotcha. Keep in mind I am on the fence about the whole inspiration thing. I wasn't trying to trash or praise it. I was confused too.

Always confused, according to my wife.

 

[pemerton]

My main thought is that Inspiration is just like many other rules that have been added to the game over time...

...an easy-to-understand and mechanical way for less experienced RPG players to learn how to do things that many experienced players already do as a matter of instinct.

Thus, I am in favor of it.

What were Skill Challenges? They were a way for new DMs to learn how to create and advance a story using skill checks to determine whether or not the party succeeded in what they wanted to do. Experienced DMs already have a pretty good grasp on how to advance their stories through PC interaction, rolling checks as they felt necessary for dramatic tension or whatnot... and thus the formalized game system of "X successes before 3 failures" was seen as unnecessary for probably most of them.

This is not the first time I've seen skill challenges described like this, but I personally don't agree with it.

Skill challenges are a scene-based conflict resolution mechanic - they not mostly about teaching pacing, they're about achieving pacing and also finality of resolution. They are a version of similar mechanics found in HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel and (since 4e's publication) Marvel Heroic RP. While no problem for beginners, there is nothing particularly "beginner-ish" about them, any more than D&D's combat resolution mechanics are especially aimed at beginners.

The same for Inspiration - assuming that it will work something like artha in BW, or like XP in Marvel Heroic RP, there is nothing about it that makes it seem especialy "beginner-ish" to me. Any RPG can potentially benefit from a mechanic that tightly links character and them into resolution, though it doens't have to be via "bennies" - compare Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel, which mean that action resolution become easier when you are playing to theme and character; or relationships in HeroWars/Quest, which act as augments to action resolution when you are playing to theme and character. It's not about teaching RP, it's about driving the game in a certain direction, and trying to express emotional tension in mechanical terms.

 

[Cyberen]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : exactly ! I mentionned TSOY the other day, and yesterday, I read Lady Blackbird again... Those "hit a RP key to have a mechanical effect (a benny or XP)" are definitely potent RP drivers, and not limited to beginners or genre emulation.
For Basic play, I find Savage Worlds blurb about Bennies perfectly suitable for Inspiration.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Good post overall, but the section here confuses me a bit. Why on earth would the beginning or less experienced player be using the advanced default rules? If this is supposed to be teaching new folk how to "roleplay", should they not be in the "basic" game? or whatever term WOTC is using these days for the bare bone default game.

The "basic" rules aren't intended only for new players, and the "advanced" rules aren't intended only for experienced players. There are plenty of experienced players that prefer a rules-light game, and the "advanced" rules don't strike me as being too complicated for new players to handle. Even with all of the rules modules they've presented thus far, DnDN is much simpler than many other RPGs I've played.

 

[pemerton]

wrong thread.

 

[DEFCON 1]

While no problem for beginners, there is nothing particularly "beginner-ish" about them, any more than D&D's combat resolution mechanics are especially aimed at beginners.

The same for Inspiration - assuming that it will work something like artha in BW, or like XP in Marvel Heroic RP, there is nothing about it that makes it seem especialy "beginner-ish" to me.

They are "beginner-ish" in that they are actual game systems that a person can read, learn from, and use. They instruct you on how to help create a well-rounded character or to create and run a scene that uses skill checks. When the book could just say "you want to create a well-rounded character to play" but doesn't go into what that means or how a player might go about it... actually giving you a format and examples on how to *is* a system for new and inexperienced players to use.

And as a matter of fact... yes, in fact the combat rules *are* for beginners too. They teach new and inexperienced players how to run D&D combat. So the combat rules are just like skill challenges and inspiration-- they are a set format that can be used to create (usually) workable situations that they are meant to accomplish.

Now are they useful enough that even advanced players can use them and enjoy them? Absolutely, and my third post mentioned that. But advanced players can also rip apart the combat rules if they want and create their entire own from the pieces, they can create well-round three-dimensional characters without any help or aid from the book, and can create or improvise whole storylines without a format of when to ask for checks (if at all). So the combat, skill challenge and inspiration rules are not necessary for advanced players if they don't feel they need them. But they most certainly do work for them if they enjoy them or want to use an established game system.

But there's no reason to deny that having a set of rules and game system is meant to help players learn to play the game and eventually play it well.

 

[pemerton]

But there's no reason to deny that having a set of rules and game system is meant to help players learn to play the game and eventually play it well.

I would find this an odd way to characterise the purpose of the rules of chess. And I find it equally odd for an RPG.

in fact the combat rules *are* for beginners too. They teach new and inexperienced players how to run D&D combat. So the combat rules are just like skill challenges and inspiration-- they are a set format that can be used to create (usually) workable situations that they are meant to accomplish.

<snip>

advanced players can also rip apart the combat rules if they want and create their entire own from the pieces

This doesn't really fit with my experience - I don't see any special connection between being a good or experienced player, and being a game designer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would find this an odd way to characterise the purpose of the rules of chess. And I find it equally odd for an RPG.

Just because you find it an odd characterization doesn't mean it's not true. Rules teach. That's part of their purpose. And who do you teach? The new and inexperienced. Thus rules are put in place to teach the new and inexperienced.

This doesn't really fit with my experience - I don't see any special connection between being a good or experienced player, and being a game designer.

Hence my use of the word "can" rather than "all". Advanced players can (and in many cases do) take the rules of D&D and adjust or build them to suit their needs and playstyles.

 

[Balesir]

Just because you find it an odd characterization doesn't mean it's not true. Rules teach. That's part of their purpose. And who do you teach? The new and inexperienced. Thus rules are put in place to teach the new and inexperienced.

Oh, come on! New players have to learn the rules, for sure, but that's not the main purpose of rules. The main purpose of rules is to limit and define; this applies to society's rules as well as game rules.

In any competitive endeavour, the rock-bottom baseline is "the guy with the most powerful armament wins". That's why we have armies, it's why we have arms races and it's a solid underpinning rule of existence. The rules and laws we make for ourselves to overlay that are there to limit and to define the games that we play every day. That argument extends up to and including roleplaying rules. In many of the cases, including in roleplaying, some of the rules are even written down.

In roleplaying, though, the rules have other important functions. They communicate the nature of the imaginary world. They constrain the creativity of all the players, to enhance its quality. These things factor into art and sport, too, but this forum's topic of interest is roleplaying games, and they definitely perform that function there.

So, do rules teach? Well, they communicate, and that's a key part of teaching. But it's a key function even after the teaching part is done, too, so I would say that "teaching" is a pretty minor part of their role, all things considered.