Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[DEFCON 1]

Based on context ("By baking inspiration into the core... we have the structure for more in-depth rules modules"), I think it's pretty clear that Mearls is talking about the former. That's what "baked in" means; a "baked in" mechanic is one that is tightly integrated with the ruleset and can't easily be removed. There will be more complex optional systems around inspiration, but inspiration itself will not be optional.

Then it comes down to what does "easily removed" mean. For instance... the d20 is a TRUE "baked in" mechanic. The entire game is built around using that die to generate the random numbers of a certain span in a certain percentage of occurence needed for the game to work. Using something other than a d20 (like 2d10 or 3d6) would affect so many other systems in the game that making that change would be (at least in my opinion) extremely difficult and time consuming.

But is "equipment" baked into the system? Could you remove weapons (for example) from the game entirely and still play it? Sure... you just use nothing but spellcasting classes and adjust the monsters you encounter to fit that paradigm. But there's no real issue across most of the other systems in the game if you don't use weapons, because there is an easy work-around-- don't use any classes or monsters that use weapons. So are weapons "baked into" the system? Would we consider weapons to be a "core part of the game"? Most of us probably would... even though it wouldn't be that hard to work around them if the table chose to go in that direction.

So that's what I'm getting at. How baked in is "baked in"? I mean... as Klaus just mentioned, if the Inspiration rule is based upon how often the DM gives the award and the choice of "Never" is an option... is Inspiration really "baked in"?

 

[TerraDave]

Everything he described should be clearly marked "optional".

 

[KidSnide]

Based on context ("By baking inspiration into the core... we have the structure for more in-depth rules modules"), I think it's pretty clear that Mearls is talking about the former. That's what "baked in" means; a "baked in" mechanic is one that is tightly integrated with the ruleset and can't easily be removed. There will be more complex optional systems around inspiration, but inspiration itself will not be optional.

On second reading, I agree that it sounds like that. It makes a lot of sense to bake a modern role-playing mechanic like this into the standard game, but it's a little surprising to see this kind of mechanic in the basic game.

It has a significant (ok not huge, but still significant) power effect. I would imagine that, in the typical campaign, most PCs will have the opportunity to gain inspiration in most difficult encounters, whether through role-playing, through a bond with another PC or because the encounter itself is pursing an essential character goal. Effectively, that allows each PC to gain advantage on a single (player chosen) roll in any encounter where it matters. It's hardly game breaking, but those kind of bennies add up.

-KS

 

[ExploderWizard]

Please run, do not walk, away from D&D Next.

Giving mechanical benefits for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is like giving someone who actually bet, extra cards in poker. I guess there just weren't quite enough ways to powergame with character build fiddly bits alone, so this is what we get.

If no one roleplays without this its seriously time to ask yourself: am I gaming with the right people?

 

[Li Shenron]

Based on context ("By baking inspiration into the core... we have the structure for more in-depth rules modules"), I think it's pretty clear that Mearls is talking about the former. That's what "baked in" means; a "baked in" mechanic is one that is tightly integrated with the ruleset and can't easily be removed. There will be more complex optional systems around inspiration, but inspiration itself will not be optional.

As currently presented, it does sound like it would be a piece of cake to ignore inspiration...

I hope that sentence about baking does not really mean to make it mandatory (and IMHO it would take quite a voluntary design effort to make it so!). As much as I like the idea itself, they would be truly utterly stupid to make it mandatory.

I didn't get the impression that it had anything to do with funny voices.

I agree, it sounds rather about rewarding making decisions that are well tuned with the character's chosen morality, ethics, goals, quirks, flaws etc. The voice is hardly part of these.

 

[Balesir]

At first reading this article seems to conflate two things that I think would be better off kept separated.

First there's "stuff to help you find out who your character is". This is fine, although I would personally trend towards the version done in the old MGF (Maximum Game Fun!):

- List five things that everybody knows about you.

- Now list three things that nobody (else) knows about you.

- Finally, what is your favourite posession/ability/spell?

Then, you have a reward system.

This is the tricky bit. It's interesting that introducing another reward system into D&D is being considered, but making it an undefined bit of wibble just seems like a massive cop out. If it's all "up to the DM", why include it?? The DM can add this sort of stuff anyway!

Reward systems cut to the very heart of an RPG. Two aspects need careful consideration:

1) What is rewarded? Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it!!

2) What is the reward? If it doesn't fit seamlessly with what the reward is for, some pretty weird effects can result!

Generally, D&D has given rewards for killing things (or outwitting them, or avoiding them) and taking their stuff. The reward is to get better at killing things and taking their stuff. It's pretty crude, but at least it's consistent and hangs together as a system.

What's being suggested now seems to be "you get rewards for doing what the DM wants you to do, and the reward is to get more lax judgements from the DM when you try something the DM likes". Um, yeah. So, the objective is that the players should entertain the DM? OK. If you want.

But, surely, we can come up with some more coherent and inspiring aims to be rewarded than that? Maybe even several - in modules, even? At least something like "You get an inspiration if you set a goal for the scene - something your character wants specifically out of the encounter, other than just "overcoming the challenge" (that applies to the whole party). You can use that inspiration in the scene to boost a skill, attack or anything else to help you get to your goal. If you fail to achieve the goal, you become discouraged (lose some appropriate resource or gain a penalty in the next encounter)".

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm not keen on the name, because it seems like it will be awkward in play, and I would prefer if inspiration expired at the end of the session instead of the scene, but otherwise the system looks sound.

 

[MarkB]

Okay, so we have Aspects, except we choose them off a table, and we have Fate Points, except we can't accumulate or retain them.

As role-playing encouragements go, this feels like a really weak, timid toe-in-the-water step towards Fate-style gaming. I'd very much prefer to see them either go the whole hog or scrap this mechanic - it feels too weak to use as a full-blown directed-roleplaying system, and yet too intrusive to completely ignore.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay, so we have Aspects, except we choose them off a table, and we have Fate Points, except we can't accumulate or retain them.

As role-playing encouragements go, this feels like a really weak, timid toe-in-the-water step towards Fate-style gaming. I'd very much prefer to see them either go the whole hog or scrap this mechanic - it feels too weak to use as a full-blown directed-roleplaying system, and yet too intrusive to completely ignore.

It sounds as though you actually have played FATE though... which means that indeed, it's middle-of-the-ground to you. But this'll be a huge sea change for large groups of players. So a small toe-dip to you is going to be a full-on dousing for most other people, and thus an all-or-nothing approach is pointless. If they wanted to play FATE, they'd play FATE. The fact they are still playing D&D says something... and thus just putting in a taste of FATE is all you really need. And for those who think it's not FATE enough... they can just go back and play FATE itself.

 

[KidSnide]

Giving mechanical benefits for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is like giving someone who actually bet, extra cards in poker. I guess there just weren't quite enough ways to powergame with character build fiddly bits alone, so this is what we get.

There are lots of successful games that provide mechanical benefits for roleplaying your character. Point-buy games like GURPS gave extra character points for taking role-playing related disads. More modern games like Savage Worlds provide benes when you fulfill one of your character attributes. It hasn't been a part of standard-issue D&D, but it's hardly an aberration.

And, YMMV, but many Poker variants provide extra cards to the players who bet. (Draw Poker, for example.) Often its an essential part of the game.

-KS