Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Stormonu]

Throw in Flaws and Perks and we might have a modern roleplaying system .

I do find it rather odd that D&D has never adopted such a system outside of 3E's Unearthed Arcana. I think I'd like it as an optional module in the core rulebook (in the way that Non-Weapon Proficiencies were optional in 2E's PHB), and I'd really have to test drive it to see how this is going to actually work in D&D. Quest cards in 4E seemed a great idea when they were presented (I used them for Keep on the Shadowfell), but I doubt everyone would agree they want them in their game. Sure, put Inspiration in the book, but make it clear it's an optional module from the start.

 

[jrowland]

... I thought that was all just to keep things going while D&D Next was being developed, but that statement makes it sound like it's not the stop-gap measure, but the long term aim...

I think its neither a stop-gap nor a long-term aim of the RPG but rather, Hasbro doing what Hasbro does. Hasbro owns the brand and wants to slap the D&D name on a bunch of other stuff...whatever. We know better, and the kids may buy into the other stuff for a while, but like any fad, they'll figure out where the "cool" really is.

(dear god...D&D is cool? The world has changed)

 

[JonWake]

It's a smart move.

If you want to appeal to a lot of people, you don't design for the forums. Everyone on a forum wants a different specific thing. Inspiration is either too StoryGamey, or not 'elegant' like a storygame. It's either too nice to the min maxers or is isolating the char op boards. The math is either far too rigid or not rigid enough. One forum screams one thing, the other screams the polar opposite, and the majority of actual playtesters are saying something completely different in the surveys.

The game doesn't have to be all things to all people. It just have to be good enough. Good enough that if you ask your friends to play a game, one or two might say "it's not my favorite", but no one will wince and forget to show up. Good enough that if a group stumbles on something that bugs them, they can patch it in a couple minutes. Will some die-hards avoid it? Sure. So what? They weren't going to play it anyway. But for everyone else, it's good enough. Not Earth shatteringly cool, not groundbreaking, just good enough.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree, with a caveat: there's a danger going into the future that these merchandised lines could become D&D, and the TTRPG product could grow increasingly vestigial and eventually be cancelled altogether. Given what we know about the TTRPG market, I rather suspect this is the outcome the D&D brand owners are actively courting.

I hope I'm wrong, of course.

I doubt that. Honestly if the D&D market had a successful mini, card, and board games line, as well as LEGO products, a better novel line(come on how many Drizzt books do we really need?), maybe some movies or a TV series; it would probably be able to better support a less profitable TTRPG line.

One of the reasons D&D struggles is because it doesn't expand into tertiary markets and the ENTIRE burden of Hasbro's "income requirements" is on the singular product. But if D&D branches out into a variety of tertiary products, the burden will then be spread out over several product lines.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I doubt that. Honestly if the D&D market had a successful mini, card, and board games line, as well as LEGO products, a better novel line(come on how many Drizzt books do we really need?), maybe some movies or a TV series; it would probably be able to better support a less profitable TTRPG line.

One of the reasons D&D struggles is because it doesn't expand into tertiary markets and the ENTIRE burden of Hasbro's "income requirements" is on the singular product. But if D&D branches out into a variety of tertiary products, the burden will then be spread out over several product lines.

Why would they want to support a less profitable line?

Mind, I believe there are good answers--but you can bet this question will be raised every time a new TTRPG product is proposed. And will Mearls' successor believe that these answers are still good?

Merchadising does seem to be the way forward, but I'm confident the risks to our hobby are real.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why would they want to support a less profitable line?

Technically speaking, because of the way the new numbers would be divded, D&D would actually appear more profitable, because it would be shooting for a lower bar.

Lets say that D&D the brand name has 10 sub products, and needs to meet a $21m mark as a whole:
It's got:
D&D the TTRPG
D&D the comic books.
D&D the video game.
D&D the mini line.
D&D LEGO sets.
D&D board games.
D&D CCGs.
D&D novels.
D&D cook books.
D&D accessories(T-shirts, jewelery, etc.)

Well, as it stands now, D&D the TTRPG has to make 100% of that $21m in order to reach "special status" within Hasbro lines. But with sub-product lines, D&D the TTRGP only has to make $8m, while the other $19m is spread out over the other product lines. Well, D&D as a genre only brings in $18m. It didn't hit the mark, but D&D the TTRPG brought in $7m, just shy of it's $8m mark. Whereas before, D&D the TTRPG only brought in $7m out of $21m. Originally, D&D the TTRPG was only hitting 1/3rd of it's sales quota, where now it's reaching 7/8ths! D&D the TTRPG now appears to be almost 3 times as profitable!

The bottom line(pun intended) is that marketing is more akin to magic than it is to science. A less profitable line within a greater and more profitable brand name is sustainable because it only needs to reach a smaller percentage of the pie, instead of filling in the whole puzzle.

 

[dd.stevenson]

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]

The question is: why include the TTRPG on that list when you can remove it and boost your margins?


I'm posting from a device so I have to keep it short, but it looks like you're using "profit" to also mean sales revenue.

 

[Li Shenron]

The article says this:To me, that says "doing something you normally do, but with a lame accent." That doesn't sound like something worthy of a weird, socially tricky reward. I, as a DM, don't understand how I'm supposed to use this system. Why would I give players rewards for doing what they normally do?

Talking in a funny voice and creatively narrating your character's actions is not what roleplaying is about. It's about making choices. This kind of system only makes sense to me when you reward players for making a choice they wouldn't normally make (as in the Fate system). That system also discourages powergaming, since the only way to benefit is to make sub-optimal choices. This system encourages powergaming, because you're still power-attacking the orc with your +2 greataxe, but you're also giving a 200-page description to fish for 'inspiration' from the DM. I'll pass.

Having said that, I'm sure this "core rule" will be little more than a sentence in the DMG: "Consider giving your players a bonus on their roll if they narrate their action creatively." Thus, it seems pretty benign.

I thought that "acting your PC's dialogue" was just intended as detailing what your character says in an interaction contest, as opposed to just say "I roll a Diplomacy check".

But maybe by "acting" Mearls really meant staging the speech theatrically. I don't think it's bad for a gaming group to reward that, if everybody likes that sort of thing. But I agree it's bad for D&D to encourage everybody to stage or perform, because this is something that easily alienates A LOT of players who just hate that way of playing the game.

Although, IMHO the problem is not so much with people staging their roleplaying, but rather with people who suck hard at that*, and don't realize it. Doing "funny voices" is not acting, it is LAME acting (unless the whole wanted context is clearly comedic, in which case funny voices can be part of it).

*which is really the vast majority of the gamers who try

Edit: and yes, I totally agree that roleplaying is not so much about acting but rather about having your PCs make choices of free will that describe who their are as individuals (as opposed to only making tactically optimized choices, which is what an artificial intelligence would do)

 

[pemerton]

Mearls says

A final table provides your character with something that sparks the beginning of your adventuring career and gives your character a key problem or question that needs an immediate solution. Perhaps you left the guild because your master was murdered under circumstances that point to you as a suspect. You might have been sent as an undercover agent to infiltrate the cartel that is working to undermine the guild. Your DM could also give you ideas based on the campaign, or you could come up with something on your own.​

Isn't this basically the "kicker" from Sorcerry? I remember on a blog years ago, maybe even before he joined WotC, Mearls posted about rediscovering the kicker as an RPG technique. Looks like he held onto that rediscovery!

Also, on Diplomacy checks:

I have often had players say things like "I'm making a Diplomacy check to convince the king to fund our expedition."

<snip>

My response is always, "Okay. What are you saying?"

<snip>

there is a certain logic to just making the skill check. You don't have to explain how you're manipulating the lock mechanism when you roll Open Locks, and you don't have to explain the sequence of motions in a back flip when you roll Acrobatics. Why should you have to explain what you're saying when you roll Diplomacy? I view speaking in character as an essential part of roleplaying, but not everyone feels that way.)

I agree, and I mostly feel the same way, but DMs who feel the same way are already doing this. DM's who don't feel the same way won't want a core mechanic telling them they're doing it wrong.

I don't see any particularly tight connection between "OK. What are you saying?" and "speaking in character".

I am perfectly happy with 1st person narration by players ("Your majesty, won't you fund our expedition? [Goes on to set out reasons A, B and C.]") and with 3rd person narration ("I explain to the king that he should fund our expedition, because otherwise A, B and C.") And I vary from one to the other when narrating NPC action, as the inclination takes me.

But I still need the player to tell me what his/her PC is saying, whether that is 1st person or 3rd person narration, because otherwise I don't have enough information to adjudicate what success and failure would mean, because I don't know what it is that the player has put on the line via the action (eg there's a big difference between telling the king that if he funds your expedition you'll bring him a souvenir, and if he funds your expedition you'll be his servant for life)!.

 

[MortalPlague]

I like this idea. Letting the DM choose what sort of actions gain 'Inspiration' will let DMs control how much of an effect this has on their group. It's easy enough to just never award it. And the fact that you can't hold it for long means it's not so much a resource to track but a situational modifier for a clever action.

It seems to me that WotC is in a tough position. When they focus only on combat, they get accused of ignoring roleplay. When they focus on roleplay, the forums go mad about WotC cramming 'bad acting' down our throats.

Funny.