Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[Lord Twig]

Two responses.

First, someone with an abrasive personality might still inspire by example. Or by force of will. Look at Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos.

Second, though, what makes you think we can hold personality constant and change class? Who thinks, for instance, that a classic paladin can have the same personality as a classic assassin? Or, in 4e, that an avenger and a barbarian would have the same personality? Or, in 5e, that a druid of the land and a Cthulhu-serving warlock would have the same personality?

Even if one treats class just as training, it's not in general true that every personality type is well-suited to every occupational type (eg some occupations require more patience than others).

Once one acknowledges that class extends beyond training to archetype, class and personality are clearly related in certain ways. Eg what how could it mean be true that a fighter of level X and 14 CHA is just as charming in personality as a rogue or bard of the same level with Persuasion expertise and 14 CHA?


This is where we have a collision of genre. (And maybe of politics, but that goes beyond the scope of the forum discussion.)

In Tolkien, for instance, a leader is not superior - and hence others are not inferior - simply in virtue of formal occupation of an office. A very important them in Tolkien is that of fitness for office (qv Feanor, Maedhros, Fingon, Thingol, the Numenorean kings, Sauron and the Ringwraiths, Theoden, Saruman, Eomer, Boromir, Faramir, Denethor et atl). A monarch or similar office-holder is called upon to prove him-/herself.

Hence capacity to inspire does not follow from office. Rather, genuine entitlement to office follows from capacity to lead and inspire. (This is all an elaboration of Bawylie's post contrasting Theoden and Denethor.)

That's a very pre-modern, Romantic European conception of leadership.

In what I would think of as a more American tradition, we have the notion of democratic leadership, grounded not in office (which may or may not be formally occupied) but from being the acknowledged first among equals. This is the model of inspirational leadership exhibited by Nick Fury, Captain America, and arguably even Conan among the Kozaks (though the latter is more complicated because it also draws in REH's views about racial and cultural superiority).

In the context of a RPG, the warlord doesn't need to enjoy formal authority to exemplify either of these tropes, or any sort of blending between them. The mechanics do make it true that the warlord is inspiring in personality (just as, eg, mechanics make it true that the bard is charming).

So you are saying that they are not inspiring because they are leaders, but they are leaders because they are inspiring. And since a Warlord is inspiring because the mechanics say he is, then he should be the leader of the group.

And this is where we really part ways.

The notion that inspiring someone is manipulating their emotions is anathema to me.

Yesterday, at work, one of my colleagues said something that made me smile and laugh. That wasn't a manipulation of my emotions. It was just making me amused for a moment. Another colleague complimented me for something that I said - that brought me pleasure, but it wasn't manipulation.

The inspirational warlord rouses his/her companions spirits. Restores hope, when it is flagging. Reminds them of what is at stake, and why it is worth struggling for. Etc. None of that need be manipulation (and, in the context of the genre tropes, is not - the cynical, manipulative Nick Fury of, say, the Avengers movie is not a warlord in the spirit of these tropes).

If one can't think of the emotional dimensions of human relationships and interactions except via the notion of manipulation - which is the atomistic conception that I have referred to upthread and in other threads - then of course there is no room for the warlord. And presumably, on this model, the cleric and paladin are just variant wizards or fighter-mages.

But there is nothing in 5e that confines it to this conception, and leaves no room for those other, staple, genre tropes and archetypes.

And I don't see why this ability to make people smile, or to inspire people, or to encourage, should be limited to one class. My Wizard can make people smile. My Fighter can inspire people and my Rogue can encourage people. I fail to see the need to give a mechanical benefit to things like this. It is already possible in the game for any character.

And I don't see the need to require other characters to be inspired or encouraged by one particular character because it says so on his character sheet.

 

[pemerton]

So you are saying that they are not inspiring because they are leaders, but they are leaders because they are inspiring.

Yes.

And since a Warlord is inspiring because the mechanics say he is, then he should be the leader of the group.

Leader in what sense?

The warlord brings hope and vigour where it was flagging. Insofar as that is a form of leadership, then yes. But the warlord needn't enjoy authority. An illusionist in AD&D can bring hope, using the Emotions spell - but that doesn't mean the illusionist is necessarily the leader in other contexts.

And I don't see why this ability to make people smile, or to inspire people, or to encourage, should be limited to one class.

To me, this is no different from saying "I don't think only rogues or bards should be able to be the most charming" - yet they are, because only they get Persuasion expertise.

Or saying "I don't think only barbarians should be able to be the most angry" - yet they are, via their Rage feature.

It's in the nature of a class system to silo things. Criticism can be made of that, and have been - look at a system like RQ, for instance, where any PC can pray to the gods and receive blessings in return. But the warlord isn't any special target of such criticism.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I don't see why this ability to make people smile, or to inspire people, or to encourage, should be limited to one class.

Well, it is a class-based system, the idea is classes do some things that are unique. They'll also do things that other classes can do, and, by definition, things that absolutely anyone can do. Obviously, since the Bard already hands out Inspiration, the ability would not limited to one class, so you have nothing to worry about. Just like you have no reason to worry that the Warlord would somehow be implemented in a non-optional way.

 

[jayoungr]

Throughout the post below, I will use "Warlord" as shorthand for "character who inspires."

Second, though, what makes you think we can hold personality constant and change class?

I'm not talking about personality, although I did use that word in my query; I'm talking about inter-party relations. I keep hearing that mundane inspiration can work no matter how the rest of the party relates to the Warlord. So I took the Fellowship of the Ring as shorthand for a group of characters we all know who have a particular relationship to each other and asked how those who were not in obvious roles of leadership or reverence could inspire. The important point about Boromir isn't so much his personality as his relationship to the rest of the group.

That said, and for what it's worth, I think classes come with certain baseline implications about personality, but there's still a spectrum of possibilities for each one. Some people, as you probably know, delight in trying to find the most unlikely combination of class and personality. More to the point, there should be almost infinite permutations for how any single example of one class relates to any single example of another.

If you think there's no way Boromir could be a Warlord, why not? If he had Warlord on his character sheet, what would his hypothetical player be doing wrong?

Eg what how could it mean be true that a fighter of level X and 14 CHA is just as charming in personality as a rogue or bard of the same level with Persuasion expertise and 14 CHA?

Charming to whom, though? The rogue or bard would have a better chance of charming a random NPC, but the rest of the party doesn't have to find the rogue/bard charming. Maybe they can see through the facade to the desperate and rather pathetic need for approval underneath, so they're not fooled by things that would dazzle an NPC.

And do we agree that at most tables, the rogue or bard would be discouraged from using the Persuasion expertise on another party member?

In Tolkien, for instance, a leader is not superior - and hence others are not inferior - simply in virtue of formal occupation of an office.

As a person? Maybe so. One could argue that they are superior in a sort of cart-before-the-horse way--that the ones truly born to highest office somehow mysteriously do demonstrate the highest superiority in a neat hierarchical way. I don't really want to believe that, but I can't think of a good counter-argument and would welcome one if you have it.

In what I would think of as a more American tradition, we have the notion of democratic leadership, grounded not in office (which may or may not be formally occupied) but from being the acknowledged first among equals....

In the context of a RPG, the warlord doesn't need to enjoy formal authority to exemplify either of these tropes, or any sort of blending between them. The mechanics do make it true that the warlord is inspiring in personality (just as, eg, mechanics make it true that the bard is charming).

This is where I see the bigger problem, actually. I would venture to say that most players of D&D come from cultures that like to think of themselves as meritocracies. We like to think that positions of authority are granted to those who display the greatest capability to lead--and if they are not, then an injustice is being done. So when a player shows up with a character concept whose entire heart is "I have a marvelous capacity to lead, better than anyone else in the party, and it doesn't even come from magic but just from my own natural qualities," the obvious corollary is "Therefore, I deserve to be placed in a position of leadership, and if I'm not, then an injustice is being committed."

The notion that inspiring someone is manipulating their emotions is anathema to me.

I think I see what @Lord Twig was saying. Filtering it through characters means that one player influences how another player plays his/her PC, which can be seen as manipulating the second player.

The inspirational warlord rouses his/her companions spirits. Restores hope, when it is flagging. Reminds them of what is at stake, and why it is worth struggling for. Etc.

But what do you say if I want to be able to decide for myself whether what another character says is something my PC would find inspiring? I hope it's more than "Just decline the buff," because while that's a possible solution, it doesn't strike me as an ideal one.

the cynical, manipulative Nick Fury of, say, the Avengers movie is not a warlord in the spirit of these tropes.

This statement interests me. Are you saying that it would be somehow against the concept to play a Warlord like Nick Fury, or just that it doesn't fit your mental ideal of what a really heroic Warlord would be like?

 

[Neonchameleon]

But let me drag you back to topic, kicking and screaming if need be:

Do you allow players to use the application of their PC's social skill(s) to influence how another player's character thinks or feels?

That depends on how those social skills are written. The D&D ones are far too clunky. I do however allow social skills like Apocalypse World's go aggro which influence without hard-coding what the response is. ("Bring it on" is always a legitimate response to go aggro).

Should one PC trying to intimidate another influence how they behave? Categorically YES. (Do the rules of D&D represent this well? No - all the D&D social skills suck). How they decide to respond should be up to them.

I would counter with, in a roleplaying game, people want to actually play a role. Not just garner bonuses. Otherwise there are plenty of boardgames out there that better suit that narrow a need.

Indeed. Most of us enjoy playing a role. Most of us however don't want that role to be inhuman, uninfluenced by those around us.

And if you do, you can turn down the buffs. Which would be an interesting approach to take. But you point blank refuse to follow the logic of your character through in any way where it might possibly be a drawback so far as I can tell.

Prove it. Show me one. That's all you need do. Show me the inspirational warlord that does not [force the other players to respect them]

The comic relief inspiring warlord shouldn't get much respect. But they can inspire people - while screwing up and hopefully getting laughed at.

And to put things simply the Battlemaster is further from the Warlord than the Eldritch Knight is from the wizard. The problem with citing the Battlemaster and the Bard is that it means that if you accept both almost all the conceptual work has been done that people would want to argue. In order to be consistent about an opposition to warlords you'd need to take out the Bard and the Battlemaster and Bardic Inspiration. The bridge has been crossed just as allowing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters would allow Vancian magic into a game while leaving out the traditional Wizard. Which means that I struggle to see how the opposition to the class is one to the pieces that make it up rather than being a direct opposition to the class on grounds I can only see as incoherent.

 

[jayoungr]

That depends on how those social skills are written. The D&D ones are far too clunky. I do however allow social skills like Apocalypse World's go aggro which influence without hard-coding what the response is. ("Bring it on" is always a legitimate response to go aggro).

Should one PC trying to intimidate another influence how they behave? Categorically YES. (Do the rules of D&D represent this well? No - all the D&D social skills suck).

You're speaking from the point of view of someone who wants social actions between PCs to be represented mechanically. Apocalypse World and its spinoffs do that. D&D, on the other hand, expects most social actions between PCs to be handled through freeform roleplay, and plenty of people prefer it that way.

The comic relief inspiring warlord shouldn't get much respect. But they can inspire people - while screwing up and hopefully getting laughed at.

Can you go into more detail about the "comic relief inspiring warlord"? This is the first I've heard of that concept. Would this be like, say, Jar Jar Binks accidentally killing battle droids in The Phantom Menace? (Note, I say this as someone who actually likes the Star Wars prequels, so that comparison is not intended as a slur.)

 

[mellored]

The inspirational warlord rouses his/her companions spirits. Restores hope, when it is flagging. Reminds them of what is at stake, and why it is worth struggling for. Etc. None of that need be manipulation (and, in the context of the genre tropes, is not - the cynical, manipulative Nick Fury of, say, the Avengers movie is not a warlord in the spirit of these tropes).

I strongly disagree. To me, that's simply a matter of alignment.

Inspire: fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something. = good alignment.
Manipulate: influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously. = neutral
Drive: compel (someone) to act in a particular way, especially one that is considered undesirable or inappropriate" = evil warlord.

Of course, good alignment is the default, but i see no reason why an evil warlord would tell you to feel good about yourself.
"Get up and fight you little sissy, or i'm going to gut your entire family for spawning such a weakling."


"Motivate" is probably a more neutral word. Letting players decide the how, since, of course, not every PC would be motivated the same way.

You need to tell tony stark that his actions will get him the ladies.
You need to tell captain america that is actions will save the country.
You need to tell the hulk something that get's him angry.

 

[mellored]

And I don't see why this ability to make people smile, or to inspire people, or to encourage, should be limited to one class. My Wizard can make people smile. My Fighter can inspire people and my Rogue can encourage people. I fail to see the need to give a mechanical benefit to things like this. It is already possible in the game for any character.

Why can't any character cast a spell?
Why can't anyone hide as a bonus action?
Why can't anyone multi-attack?
Why can't anyone sing a song so magical it heals wounds?

I fail to see the need to give a mechanical benefit to praying. It's already possible for any character to ask their god for miracles.


Warlord's inspiration isn't just ordinary words. It's extraordinary, near magical inspiration that can motivate people beyond what they thought was possible. They wield words like fighter's wield swords. Fast, sharp, and penetrating to the deep recesses of the mind, pulling up from the sub-conscious will and effort that the target didn't know they had.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Why can't any character cast a spell?
Why can't anyone hide as a bonus action?
Why can't anyone multi-attack?
Why can't anyone sing a song so magical it heals wounds?

The apple-to-apple is actually: Why can't anyone roleplay?

I fail to see the need to give a mechanical benefit to praying. It's already possible for any character to ask their god for miracles.

Good thing this strawman isn't what clerics actually do/are.

 

[mellored]

The apple-to-apple is actually: Why can't anyone roleplay?

Anyone can.

It's even in the rules. The DM can give you advantage on 1 roll for good roleplaying, and you can give that role to someone else.

Good thing this strawman isn't what clerics actually do/are.

You mean that their class provides their mundane words an extraordinary mechanical effect that is not available to just anyone and only PC's who take that class get?