D&D (2024) Inspiration From Nat 20 Will Bog Down The Game

[Blue]

Yes, that was my point.

Great, we both agree the rule is basically ignored.

Which means it can't have any impact on influencing play. So it's a null in this discussion. There is no reward being offered, so it can't influence the players.

Now, if the rule was regularly used, and it didn't influence play towards playing of the traits, that would mean something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is the equivilent of "hanging up on every caller" to increase call volume. It has it's own set of anti-rewards. I assume that there was also some anti-reward to killing random townpeople?

I think we could make a fairly easy case that murderhobo as a style of play were encouraged by the "XP only for killing things" of a number of editions. Evidence that yes, some players will tend toward what they are getting rewarded for.


It's human nature, found across multiple disciplines. If they didn't do it then bravo, you have a rare group of individuals or they aren't human. Either way, keepers.

I think that’s an egregious misapplication of the measurement principle. Inspiration isn’t the only reward (paycheck) in the game. The reward is having fun, which having inspiration may contribute to. But if the decrease in overall fun due to fishing for 20s is of larger magnitude than the increase due to having more inspiration, people won’t do it.

 

[Blue]

I think that’s an egregious misapplication of the measurement principle. Inspiration isn’t the only reward (paycheck) in the game. The reward is having fun, which having inspiration may contribute to. But if the decrease in overall fun due to fishing for 20s is of larger magnitude than the increase due to having more inspiration, people won’t do it.

I think you are confused. There is no requirement that something be the only reward in order for it to be a reward, and therefore affect behavior. And I think you will find that people in D&D tend to enjoy character success.

Also, please see the example I keep bringing up about murderhobos, a well known phenomenon, and only XP for killing in several editions if you do not think a character-focused reward will motivate players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think you are confused.

Well, that's ironic.

There is no requirement that something be the only reward in order for it to be a reward, and therefore affect behavior. And I think you will find that people in D&D tend to enjoy character success.

Yes, and...

"Character success" does not directly map to having inspiration; it's just one of many factors. And, of course, "character success" is only one factor in the larger goal of having fun. Players are not all min-maxers, and not all players always choose the action that is most likely to lead to success.

Will there be some incentive to make more rolls, for the purpose of getting 20's? Yes. Will some people respond to this incentive more than others, at least when first trying out the rule? Yes. But, unlike "pay for quantity", there is not one factor here.

But more importantly, there is a huge difference between externally imposed metrics/rewards, and the rewards we give ourselves. The desire to have fun, and to have character success, comes from ourselves. It is not an externally imposed metric. If making extra rolls isn't fun, people won't do it, even if it can lead in a roundabout way to another facet of fun.

I'm not denying that the mantra "that which is not measured is optional" is relevant to a work environment. I've seen firsthand how true it is. I just don't think it applies well, or maybe at all, to gaming.

Also, please see the example I keep bringing up about murderhobos, a well known phenomenon, and only XP for killing in several editions if you do not think a character-focused reward will motivate players.

What do you mean by "well-known phenomenon"? Documentation? It hasn't been my experience. Sure, there's an incentive to kill all the monsters in the dungeon, whereas milestone leveling makes it more likely that unnecessary monsters are skipped (although, even then, players think there might be some treasure). But I have never once been in a game where a player wanted to kill innocent farmers for a few extra XP. Wouldn't your theory predict that such behavior would be commonplace?