Ideas for Improving Inspiration

[TaranTheWanderer]

PS. I'm sure this or similar implementations (fueling good traits through bad) aren't unique so I won't claim it was invented by this or that game.

Once again, sometimes positive traits can disadvantage you or the party. I think that deserves Inspiration. I'm actually a bit confused what you are proposing... it seems complicated to me. but maybe that's because I don't understand what you're saying.

I think, for the benefit of anyone reading, I'm going to compile the suggestions in to one post or .doc. Maybe, once it's done, it can be integrated into the OP. There's lots of good suggestions and one or more could be integrated in to a game, depending on what a group enjoys.

But I'll do it...later...when I have a bit of time.

 

[5ekyu]

All this talk of how other games does it better brings me to one good implementation.

* You have good traits (lets not call them advantages to avoid confusion). These are like low-key powers.
* You also have bad traits (personality flaws). These fuel your good traits.

When you invoke a bad trait (=the story takes a turn negative to your character, or your character does something bad for it or the entire group, etc) you gain one trait point.

In order to invoke a good trait, you must spend one trait point.

This way, rollplayers can ignore the whole subsystem (which I think is a requirement for a game like D&D). And roleplayers get to bring their characters personality traits, bonds and flaws to life AND gain something tangible out of the deal.

This makes your personality central, unlike WotC's Inspiration. You must just indulge your bad side in order to invoke your good sides.

(If you want to encourage the usage of the subsystem, you can start every session by giving each character one TP that have none. You can otherwise accumulate more than 1 TP and keep them between sessions.)

Of course, as you might surmise, bad traits you never use... have little function (other than maybe comedic effect etc). After all, if you don't use them you gain no TPs and maybe more importantly: your character stays bland and undistinguished. So feel free to replace them as you play. You might start out with a bunch and later crystallize your character into just one or three of them. This is all good.

Good traits seldom used are easier to keep - they might still be important to your characterization (even if not a particularly minmaxing choice). But as your character progress you're supposed to evolve your traits as well.

PS. I'm sure this or similar implementations (fueling good traits through bad) aren't unique so I won't claim it was invented by this or that game.

Doubt we could list the systems where what you describe was used quickly. It's not at all uncommon.

But as for this

"Inspiration is not deeply integrated into the game. Know what? I bet the reason is because lots of hardcore D&D gamers feel meta mechanics intrude upon their minmaxing experience. "

Bah.. combining imagining what "the reason" a design choice was made and a basic toss at minmaxers is less than compelling. Particularly since minmaxers will work to minmax the gimmick points if they see that as the key to the system. I guarantee you if low ability scores or flaws that output a lot get you the most valuable resolution fuel for success - minmaxers will be all over playing "super-lucky paraplegics" in a heartbeat.

For me, I can say this looking at systems I **wanted to like** that did integrate their gimmick pools directly, tightly, core-up into their resolution system (Cortex, Cypher, 2d20) I (and others) found it to be a negative not due to minmaxing but due to its shifting the focus to the meta-game tokens when it came down to actual play.

Maybe one day someone will hit the ideal balance between these gimmick points being a negligable add-on and being the 800lb gorilla of the system, but so far I haven't seen that happen. More to the point, it seems to me that these gimmick pools are even more table-dependent impact-wise than many other core mechanics and if that is true then more integration into core mechanics is inherently unstable.

That's why I tend to look to these as better off more removed from in- play mechanics but still a viable aspect of the game (in game spotlight, in game rewards other than mechanical, tied to advancement etc)

 

[Guest 6801328]

All this talk of how other games does it better brings me to one good implementation.

* You have good traits (lets not call them advantages to avoid confusion). These are like low-key powers.
* You also have bad traits (personality flaws). These fuel your good traits.

When you invoke a bad trait (=the story takes a turn negative to your character, or your character does something bad for it or the entire group, etc) you gain one trait point.

In order to invoke a good trait, you must spend one trait point.

This way, rollplayers can ignore the whole subsystem (which I think is a requirement for a game like D&D). And roleplayers get to bring their characters personality traits, bonds and flaws to life AND gain something tangible out of the deal.

This makes your personality central, unlike WotC's Inspiration. You must just indulge your bad side in order to invoke your good sides.

(If you want to encourage the usage of the subsystem, you can start every session by giving each character one TP that have none. You can otherwise accumulate more than 1 TP and keep them between sessions.)

Of course, as you might surmise, bad traits you never use... have little function (other than maybe comedic effect etc). After all, if you don't use them you gain no TPs and maybe more importantly: your character stays bland and undistinguished. So feel free to replace them as you play. You might start out with a bunch and later crystallize your character into just one or three of them. This is all good.

Good traits seldom used are easier to keep - they might still be important to your characterization (even if not a particularly minmaxing choice). But as your character progress you're supposed to evolve your traits as well.

PS. I'm sure this or similar implementations (fueling good traits through bad) aren't unique so I won't claim it was invented by this or that game.

One issue I have with this framework...and may be one simply of nomenclature...is the vagueness of "good" versus "bad" traits. Is "stubborn" good or bad? Some would call it "determined" or "tenacious".

I think a better approach is to focus on how traits, of any sort, are used. Are you getting a benefit? Or imposing a cost? When "suspicious" is invoked to spot an ambush, that's a benefit. When it's invoked to spoil an interaction with a friendly NPC, that's a cost.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Set some limits to the number of times Inspiration can be earned. Peg those limits to drawing upon the range of personal characteristics instead of just one or two.

This, by the way, is EXACTLY how a related mechanic works in The One Ring, from which (according to rumor) Mearles drew...uh...inspiration for 5e. It's the mechanic for increasing skills, not for rolling with Advantage in a chosen situation, but it's the same "use your traits and get something for it" idea.

1) There are 6 categories of skills
2) Each category can have up to three "advancement points" (which then get spent between adventures to improve skills)
3) Narrating skill successes by invoking traits can be used to get the 2nd point, and must be used to get the third point. There is no 4th point.


Because there are six categories, you are encouraged to find ways to invoke your traits in a variety of circumstances. And because there are only 3 points, you can't endlessly recycle the same trick. Or you can, but it doesn't get you anything.

Note that this does require the "roll then narrate" approach to roleplaying, which I realize is anathema to some people here. That is, you determine whether or not you succeed and then you...the player, not the GM...describe how it played out, using your trait.

Some of us use a house-rule where you can also invoke a trait on a critical failure to earn an AP. The example I always use is where my "Tall" character totally flubbed a stealth roll, and I narrated how he cracked his head on the lintel of the door to the ruined tower so hard that it knocked him on his backside. It was of Dwarven construction. (The tower, not his backside.)

 

[CapnZapp]

One issue I have with this framework...and may be one simply of nomenclature...is the vagueness of "good" versus "bad" traits. Is "stubborn" good or bad? Some would call it "determined" or "tenacious".

I think a better approach is to focus on how traits, of any sort, are used. Are you getting a benefit? Or imposing a cost? When "suspicious" is invoked to spot an ambush, that's a benefit. When it's invoked to spoil an interaction with a friendly NPC, that's a cost.

Agreed.

I deliberately kept it vague to avoid focusing on specific systems, but since you ask:

The specific game I have in mind is Western the RPG.

Characters get advantages and disadvantages. Examples of advantages include Artistic (bonuses to skills like acting or painting), animal handler (calm wild beasts, bonus to animal training) or "indian friend" (as a non-native PC).

To enable these you need points from your disadvantages, such as Illiterate (can't read when that would be beneficial to you), Wanted (you have a bounty on your head; you only get a point if bounty hunters show up or you're compelled to disguise yourself), or Female (you get a point when you allow your gender to be as much of an obstacle as it would have been in the real world).

Hope that clears it up

 

[Blue]

Accidentally hit submit too soon here, please disregard.

Okay

Roger Wilco.

 

[Blue]

I just remembered, I wrote a whole thing to replace inspiration:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1304

I haven't use this system yet. It was more of a thought exercise, since I thought it worked really well in Lady Blackbird.

I really liked the idea of Keys in Lady Blackbird, but I never got to see it in action. Does it play as nicely as it reads?

 

[77IM]

Yes, it does. I think the thing that makes it work is the relatively unambiguous triggering conditions -- you don't get rewarded for "good roleplaying" or "acting in accordance with your traits" or "suffering a setback;" instead, each key lists the specific action you must take, in-game, to get the reward. The triggers are phrased very much like Apocalypse World's moves, so most of them are fairly broad, but specific enough to be recognizable in play.

I let players hit their keys basically on the honor system. People would announce when they were hitting, and usually it was pretty obvious that it was legit. In the first session we had some discussion about one of Blackbird's keys (I think Key of the Impostor?) and decided that it should only come up when there was something important on the line. Interestingly, it was Blackbird's player who suggested this, since she felt it was cheap to just keep hitting that key any time she interacted with an NPC.

We had only one buyoff, I think. Snargle's player was running him as a bit of a bastard, and after he lit a guy on fire and watched him burn to death, he bought off Key of Compassion. (To be fair, that guy had it coming.)

 

[Connorsrpg]

We have developed an Inspiration Deck. Each card has something new you can do on it (not always advantage).

We also have a different XP system which grants extra cards, but yeah, we found normal inspiration pretty boring. More inspired by Savage Worlds and their Bennies and Adventure Deck

 

[Hriston]

To me, this is a key point about these traits- they serve the player, the GM and the table by spotlighting right from day one "I want these in the play" or "in focus" and to me that follows thru to "non-mechznically".

See the player already gets to make tons of choices that they want into focus that have both mechanical and non-mechanical elements to them. These will show up in play and in focus as play progresses as a matter of course and choice.

So, that's part of why I dont see the need for mechanical payback for more story-defining or flavor-selecting choices. If one player wants to play a dwarf scarred by loss who hates orcs to the point of it affecting his in game in character choices to the point of "not the objectively best" and another wants to play a more savvy jaded one who is more sensible and calculating as a GM I am happy to have both and dont see a reason to tell the former "here, have a mechanical reward."

Some points that lead me that direction include:

1 Fun is it's own reward and bonuses for not fun suck. Really, if a player wants to play a flaw, they will and they will have fun. But if a player doesn't want to play a flaw but sees it as mechanically needed or perhaps even required by rule, that's not a plus to the table for them to put up with it anyway cuz they have to.

2 Craps gonna happen anyway. Have heard this often enough when players help with chargen. Explaining that the flaw is not really extra trouble since bad stuffs gonna happen - nature of the beast. It's just that with flaw choice it's you choosing to make the crap more personal, more focused more what you think can be fun. "They are your "so in in the ball."

3 Really, it's the team's flaw. If you are running the style of game which puts a good deal of focus on team play and group encounters, personal flaws have the tendency to often turn into or be seen in play as team flaws. One charaxter's "on the lam" does not just complicate their choices but the team choices. So, we come back again to why provide mechanical rewards to one when its "their flaw" that spices the stew this week? Now, if it's a more dispersed coterie style game where its frequent for PCs maybe to not even see each other for sessions - that changes.

These bits of experience plus my group's preference for spotlight on character not player tends to lead me to go with the "reward" for flawed characters being in game fun, in game reactions and not mechanical incentives and certainly not mandated requirements.

You seem to be very focused on flaws, but, as I'm sure you know, there are lots of other personal characteristics a player can portray to gain inspiration. The sensible, calculating character can gain inspiration by being sensible and calculating, and what I'm saying is one way to use inspiration is for the DM to put that character in situations that give him/her opportunities to exhibit those qualities and see how far they go. For example, play can focus on whether that character will be sensible and calculating even when it goes against moral beliefs s/he might hold. The character can gain inspiration for staying true to that characteristic, but at what cost?