D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[CreamCloud0]

Great point.

If Bob the Cleric is absolutely inflexible about a religious vow, then that should be helping them against things that would ask them to break that vow--but it should hurt them in cases where bending, just a little, on that vow would be useful or even necessary.

I don't see many people ever talking about the latter, even though it should be a necessary accompaniment to the former. In fact, CreamCloud0 here is one of the only people I've ever seen bring this up.

i mean, i think that's kind of what the crux of flaws intention was anyway 'here are the aspects of your personality which work against you', or motivation to play that way at least, but yeah, it would logically apply to all your BITFs across the board, no trait is exclusively beneficial or negative in all circumstances.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do think this is an area where removing BITF was a mistake, for both PCs and NPCs, like Vulnerabilities that have been mentioned they’d be able to highlight where a character might be prone to being tempted or stand firm on certain subjects, players get to stake their claim on specific aspects of their character’s identity as important, so, if the character, to use a previous example, has the trait: vow of celibacy and seduction attempts aren’t going to go anywhere but that also means they’re going to struggle if they attempt to charm their way with someone else.

And with NPCs this gives them specific topics that they can be convinced just by a good argument without a check, or get to resist being vulnerable to a skill check to flip their worldview.

i mean, i think that's kind of what the crux of flaws intention was anyway 'here are your flaws which work against you', or motivation to play that way at least, but yeah, it would logically apply to all your BITFs across the board.

The mistake goes back much further when it comes to the BITFs. If you jump to about 1:21:20 in a Gencon(?) panel called 5 generations of d&d design you will hear mearls talk about a proto5e version that includes the gm side fate style compel mechanic. Absent the ability for those BIFTs to push the PC without the player being in a position to blithely decide if they are in the mood to relax their "control" when one should bite with teeth those eventual BIFTs were little more than an a shield for the ttrpg equipment of "no offense but..."

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, yeah, that's the character you're playing. Got to play the character in question. Its a test of the characters, not the players. You can certainly talk about stuff OOCly, but the character's got to do what the characters got to reasonably do.

Man, don't let the OSR crowd hear you talk like that! They're liable to form a mob, all the while reminding you that D&D requires smart play and challenges the player, not the character.

But I guess you could opt for rolling. "Roll a DC 14 Int check to solve the Sphinx's riddle. Roll a DC 15 perception to find secret door in the fireplace. Roll a DC 12 persuasion to convince the merchant to lower his price 10%. The player doesn't even need to hear the riddle, search the room, or attempt to haggle!

 

[Remathilis]

i mean, i think that's kind of what the crux of flaws intention was anyway 'here are the aspects of your personality which work against you', or motivation to play that way at least, but yeah, it would logically apply to all your BITFs across the board, no trait is exclusively beneficial or negative in all circumstances.

Agreed. Bear in mind I have never argued against flaws. I would prefer flaws of my own making however.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Agreed. Bear in mind I have never argued against flaws. I would prefer flaws of my own making however.

wasn't that always possible? sure they gave you suggested ones but you weren't limited to those.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I have championed for the innovative ways one can use TIBFs for years now as well as expanding on their number and creating your own.
Why WotC did not take advantage of TIBFs reflects, to me at least, the stagnated approach the company takes towards the game.

 

[AlViking]

I tried using TIBFs when 5e first came out and either people hated it or the values were so vague as to be meaningless. Part of the problem for me is that when I'm creating the character, they're still kind of just vague ideas until I've played for a bit. But beyond that? In my experience the people that really enjoy this kind of stuff don't need some list to guide their characters - they'll come up with unique things anyway.

To each their own of course, just relaying that I liked the idea of the concept but the implementation and reality fell far short and I'm glad they're gone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Man, don't let the OSR crowd hear you talk like that! They're liable to form a mob, all the while reminding you that D&D requires smart play and challenges the player, not the character.

But I guess you could opt for rolling. "Roll a DC 14 Int check to solve the Sphinx's riddle. Roll a DC 15 perception to find secret door in the fireplace. Roll a DC 12 persuasion to convince the merchant to lower his price 10%. The player doesn't even need to hear the riddle, search the room, or attempt to haggle!

Right. That the issue. To have agency, the players actually need to be able to make meaningful choices. And if they are allowed to make them, their real skills to some degree will matter. And this is more than fine, it is essential! Otherwise the game becomes Snakes and Ladders, where you just roll the dice to determine the course of the game and the player contributions won't matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I tried using TIBFs when 5e first came out and either people hated it or the values were so vague as to be meaningless. Part of the problem for me is that when I'm creating the character, they're still kind of just vague ideas until I've played for a bit. But beyond that? In my experience the people that really enjoy this kind of stuff don't need some list to guide their characters - they'll come up with unique things anyway.

To each their own of course, just relaying that I liked the idea of the concept but the implementation and reality fell far short and I'm glad they're gone.

They're "roleplaying training wheels" stuff. I'm sure they were useful to some people.

 

[AlViking]

They're "roleplaying training wheels" stuff. I'm sure they were useful to some people.

Not disagreeing but I'd rather just walk them through the idea of a backstory and why they're risking their neck adventuring. I don't think the PHB does a very good job but on the other hand a lot of people simply don't care. The ones that do don't seem to need the hand holding.