Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[FrogReaver]

So in other words, you assume that all players care more about mechanical benefits than roleplay? Because I would re-word your statement above as "If a player is getting a mechanical benefit in a particular situation, they either won't think about the roleplaying aspects or they will ignore them because, free buff!".

The issue isn't about mechanical benefits vs roleplay. In fact the 2 aren't even necessarily opposed. So no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that in virtually every situation where another PC is giving them a mechanical benefit at the cost of having to agree their character was inspired by a particular character that the player will automatically choose a fluff that allows them to get the buff as opposed to a fluff that does not. The only exception is if it's something really important regarding their character concept.

Why does this work in actual play so often? Because no one maps out traits about their characters like or dislike of music or like or dislike of halflings or like or dislike of whatever. And even then if they generally dislike any of those things they can also say that your particular song or halfling or whatever is an exception to the characters general dislike.

The point is that there is always fluff they can use to establish why their character was inspired by something and once the sensible fluff bridge is cross what real reason does the player have to not choose such fluffs in these situations unless it's for something he feels is going to be really important regarding his character.

So yes, i can understand your concerns on a philosophical level. Can you understand why your concerns aren't actually a problem in actual play?

 

[FrogReaver]

Incidentally, in a game I'm currently running we have a Bard that loves handing out inspiration. And why wouldn't she? She's a Bard!

So she looked that the druid character and said: "Your in the middle of a bunch of enemies. I'm going to give you inspiration!"

The player shrugged his shoulders and said: "Okay, I guess I'm inspired."

Now I know this player. His characters are typically cynical and arrogant, and this one was no exception. His view of the bard would be one of condescending amusement. He would not be inspired by her. But he was anyway because 1. the bard ability said he was and 2. because he doesn't want to rain on the bard player's parade.

You know how someone might come up to you and tell you that you should do something? Then you politely nod and continue what you were going to do anyway? That's the relationship these two should have. But that is not possible because of mechanics.

You miss the most important part of the fiction you just described. The player's character who was cynical and arrogant actually was inspired by the bard in that play session. You say so matter of factly that this character would not have been inspired by the bard, but isn't that just over generalizing? How can you say that for certain? Why can't their situation be an exception to the generalization?

I think that's the biggest problem people have with analyzing such situations is that they over generalize. It's easy to wrap up a PC in a nice neat package and say they should do xyz because they were described as abc. But that's the problem just because the pc is typically abc and will do xyz because of it that doesn't mean that there cannot be a speicific case where abc doesn't lead to xyz.

 

[jayoungr]

The issue isn't about mechanical benefits vs roleplay. In fact the 2 aren't even necessarily opposed. So no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Okay. Glad to hear it, and sorry if I sounded a bit snide. I'm just frustrated.

So yes, i can understand your concerns on a philosophical level. Can you understand why your concerns aren't actually a problem in actual play?

I get what you're saying. As I've said, I've even played in a 4E game alongside a warlord and not given it a second thought. But in retrospect, I do dislike having to picture my character as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness every time she handed out bonuses. And that's in spite of the fact that I have no personal beef with the player of the character.

 

[Lord Twig]

It really does make it a lot better. The ball remains in your court, you decide how your PC feels and reacts. You may miss out on a bonus, but there's lots of ways RPing can do that to you (your magic-distrusting Barbarian forgoing buff spells, your devotion to a rival deity causing you to refuse the help of a cleric, simply failing to coordinate your efforts, etc), 5e isn't so finely tuned that anything short of the optimal decisions every time will gank you.

Well, you set yourself up for that when you decided to play the loner/misanthrope/narcissist/whatever who won't work well with others. If you chose to play such a difficult character, surely coming up against such difficulties supports the concept. Typically, in fiction, such characters develop and may overcome their issues to forge at least one friendship - right before they die heroically, for instance.

But, no, I wouldn't worry too much about possibly being a jerk to one player at one table, the few times it takes to establish the relationship (until such time, if ever, as your character develops in a new direction, or the two of you work out a fluff that does fit). At least, not compared to being a jerk to everyone who might ever want to play a Warlord in 5e.

The character works fine with others, except the Bard and the Warlord. If you don't like those types of characters, fine, don't play them. I don't like Bards, so I don't play them. But I don't force other people to not play Bards, even though by playing them they force me to accept their silly Bard as an inspirational figure.*

Inspirational classes require all other characters to be inspired by them. One based on team tactics would require that the other characters accept their tactics, and, yes, magical characters require that the other characters accept their magic. Of those three I think it is fair to say that the last is an assumption of D&D. As you love to point out, the vast majority of character classes have some kind of magic.

*So if I don't try to stop people from playing Bards, why am I trying to prevent Warlords? Well, I don't want Bards either, but they are already in the game, and have been for some time. And IMO Warlords are worse because they don't have the "magic" workaround that can avoid the inspiration issue.

 

[Lord Twig]

You miss the most important part of the fiction you just described. The player's character who was cynical and arrogant actually was inspired by the bard in that play session. You say so matter of factly that this character would not have been inspired by the bard, but isn't that just over generalizing? How can you say that for certain? Why can't their situation be an exception to the generalization?

I think that's the biggest problem people have with analyzing such situations is that they over generalize. It's easy to wrap up a PC in a nice neat package and say they should do xyz because they were described as abc. But that's the problem just because the pc is typically abc and will do xyz because of it that doesn't mean that there cannot be a speicific case where abc doesn't lead to xyz.

Sure, you can just decide the character is inspired and everything works fine, but that's the thing. You have to decide that your character is inspired for everything to work. Having your character not be inspired if a false option. It's only an option if you are willing to refuse a buff, reduce the fun of the other player and be accused of lacking teamwork (which I have been accused of in this very thread).

And it is understandable that people who play Bards and Warlords would never notice any problem. That's because people like myself don't say anything during the game. We don't want to disrupt the game or bring anyone down. So we bury the annoyance and move on. Then, in my case at least, it picks at me more and more until I can't take it anymore and I have to express my annoyance to a bunch of strangers on a web forum.

 

[mellored]

But in retrospect, I do dislike having to picture my character as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness every time she handed out bonuses.

It's not a warlord feature, their fluff, or even very inspiring to make people worship you.

It's the warlord who needs to say inspiring things about the other characters. They build (buff) the other players up, support them, and encourage them to be the best they can be.

I mean sure, if you wanted to play a evil warlord who demanded people worship you in order to get benefits that's fine. Wouldn't make much sense narrative, but you could. Not that you need a warlord to play such a character.
If you don't worship Pelor i won't heal you.
If you don't say Bills the greatest assassin i will slit your throat at night.
If you cast magic i will rage at you.
etc...

 

[Lord Twig]

Okay. Glad to hear it, and sorry if I sounded a bit snide. I'm just frustrated.


I get what you're saying. As I've said, I've even played in a 4E game alongside a warlord and not given it a second thought. But in retrospect, I do dislike having to picture my character as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness every time she handed out bonuses. And that's in spite of the fact that I have no personal beef with the player of the character.

Case in point!

Right here. This is what it is.

It's not a major problem, it's just a little rock in your shoe that gets more and more annoying over time. You ignore it for a while, but eventually you just can't ignore it anymore and it becomes a problem.

And worshiping the Warlord's wonderfulness? Yes, that is what is required. The Warlord is so great they can help anyone fight better. Raw recruit or seasoned veteran, anyone can benefit from the Warlords excellent leadership and superior tactics.

I mean, you might think you have good tactics, but not compared to the Warlord. You lead a group of men? That's great, but you are just a Fighter. The Warlord can take your men and show you how it's done!

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It's not a warlord feature, their fluff, or even very inspiring to make people worship you.

And yet for months you've been asked to present an inspiring warlord build that does not tread in that arena. Where is it? You and your cadre of warlordists have repeatedly tried and failed.

Why you think that is?

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay. Glad to hear it, and sorry if I sounded a bit snide. I'm just frustrated.


I get what you're saying. As I've said, I've even played in a 4E game alongside a warlord and not given it a second thought. But in retrospect, I do dislike having to picture my character as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness every time she handed out bonuses. And that's in spite of the fact that I have no personal beef with the player of the character.

Thanks.

I find it interesting that you are describing it as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness. I mean who wouldn't dislike having to do that lol. But being inspired by someone or something doesn't really mean that you worship their wonderfulness. So I'm wondering now if maybe the Warlord character in your 4e game didn't outshine the other PC's to a large degree and that's where some of these sentiments are coming from?

Regardless, I understand that no matter what kind of warlord or warlord-esque abilities are in the game that such abilities do tend to take away a characters choice about his or her character. My position isn't that they don't but that the choices they are taking away are related to such minor things that ultimately lacking those choices won't have much if any impact on the game or a character.

In fact, if it wasn't for such abilities your character that hates all bard music may never get the chance to highlight that sentiment in game. Thus certain traits and characteristics can be given more opportunity to reach the light of day. I mean honestly if it wasn't for such mechanical abilities is anyone ever even going to think of making the anti-bardic music character in the first place? For the most part I'd say almost no one would as such themes just aren't very important in the scope that DND operates in.

 

[jayoungr]

I find it interesting that you are describing it as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness. I mean who wouldn't dislike having to do that lol. But being inspired by someone or something doesn't really mean that you worship their wonderfulness.

Well--it probably doesn't help that people keep holding up Aragorn and/or Gandalf as examples. I mean, practically every good-aligned character in the books holds them in almost holy reverence, and the only one who doesn't (Denethor) comes to a very bad end.

So I'm wondering now if maybe the Warlord character in your 4e game didn't outshine the other PC's to a large degree and that's where some of these sentiments are coming from?

I don't think so, but the game was a while ago, so I don't remember the mechanical aspects very well. Maybe a bigger problem is that we didn't play that game long enough for the PCs' personalities to really gel, so I don't feel like I have an alternate relationship to latch onto.