New feat category: roleplaying feats?

[Aberzanzorax]

Traditionally, at least in my games, people tend not to take feats that are "roleplaying only". Take, from 3e, the feat spell thematics. It make the wizards spells look "cooler" basically...and that's about it.

The problem being, of course, few players want to take such a feat at the expense of something useful.

One could argue "why the need for such feats?" I do admit, some dms would just let the player do "spell thematics" without any feat, as it's "just fluff". But I'm looking for roleplaying feats that do have some impact on actual gameplay. They'd be roleplaying, sure, but they'd also matter. Someone might react differently if, say, all the wizard's spells looked like fire (especially trolls).


So, here's the idea: every level (or every other, or every third, whatever) all pcs get to pick a "roleplaying feat". This is an addon, an addition to any feats and powers they already get, but it is meant to come from purely a roleplaying/world/fluff perspective.

I'd also like to see rp feats tied to something that happened during the level in which it was earned. Perhaps a fighter won a duel against a nobleman. He might take "nobility title" as a feat, becoming a duke.



Additionally, or alternately, DMs could reward these feats ad hoc. If the fighter won the duel (or did something else to earn a title), the dm could just give him the feat, over and above the system.


Thoughts?

 

[Nagol]

I'm not sure any single character needs very many of them.

I'd suggest PC get one @1st level and one per tier or equivalent after that plus any awarded during gameplay. Unlike other feats, the PCs could hold on to the effect until the player decided on something that made some sense.

It reminds me of the special effects assigned to powers in CHAMPIONS or to the identifying sigil embedded in magic in Ars Magica.

 

[Blackbrrd]

What effect do you want from this?

Personally I have given players abilities that broaden their abilities, not necessarily making them stronger. For instance the Wizard who could spontaneous cast Conjuration spells (mostly summoning).

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's an idea that has been bandied about for a while now... the whole feat/talent (combat/noncombat) split. There are plenty of feats out there that don't have anything to do with the actual combat mini-game that could easily be split apart from the main feat list. There's also the entire Skill Powers system that include skill utility powers that are not a part of the combat mini-game that you could also split off as needed. The only downside of all of that is going through the effort of writing down the split, plus dealing with the 'extra feat' issues that crop up with the Character Builder (if you use it).

Certainly doable... just a little time consuming.

 

[AeroDm]

It sounds like what you are really trying to do is put a little structure around what often occurs in games already. Stuff like making a useful contact in a city, gaining prestige for winning a tournament, etc. I think that is a perfectly admirable goal and probably will not upset game balance at all.

What I would recommend is stepping back and figuring out what you really want it to achieve. I think you might find that you are moving towards the feat format because it is a convenient platform to emulate instead of because it is actually helpful. For instance, maybe what you really want is to help players gain narrative control. When the paladin wins the tournament, he gets to declare that he gains prestige and the common folk grow to admire him. If you take the feat route, he can't emulate this unless there is already a feat written up--options are limited to what feats you create.

If, on the other hand, you really just want the flavorful stuff you described in your post, it might just take a conversation with the players. You want them to be creative, you're willing to give them modest in game benefits. If that isn't enough to motivate them, maybe there is some other underlying issue or miscommunication.

At any rate, going the feat route doesn't seem like it'll break the game, but it also doesn't sound as flexible as you might want nor as necessary as it may initially seem.

 

[Janx]

It's an idea that has been bandied about for a while now... the whole feat/talent (combat/noncombat) split. There are plenty of feats out there that don't have anything to do with the actual combat mini-game that could easily be split apart from the main feat list. There's also the entire Skill Powers system that include skill utility powers that are not a part of the combat mini-game that you could also split off as needed. The only downside of all of that is going through the effort of writing down the split, plus dealing with the 'extra feat' issues that crop up with the Character Builder (if you use it).

Certainly doable... just a little time consuming.

It's a concept I've pondered with the skill system (3x). A fighter basically gets 2 skills. Odds are good, they will be useful to the PC as a fighter (like Riding), but not reflective of the PC as a person who was the son of a blacksmith.

Since he's only got room to go max ranks in 2 skills, he's not going to waste it on fluff.

If you split stuff up into the "Class" bucket of feats/skills and the "RP bucket of feats/skills, a PC wouldn't be wasting the "good stuff" on fluff.

On the skills side, how about this idea:
each PC gets level +3 ranks to spend on Craft, Profession, knowledge (barring arcana, religion, monsters aka the useful adventurer knowledge skills). This way, the PC could reflect having background skills as a blacksmith, or engineer, or navigator.

Without costing him the vital points he needs to make his PC awesome at D&D.

Feats are a bit messier, as they tend to be class oriented. I suspect part of the real problem is that not all feats are created equal. Perhaps the lesser feats just need a bump up in power to even their value as choices for PCs.

 

[AeroDm]

On the skills side, how about this idea:
each PC gets level +3 ranks to spend on Craft, Profession, knowledge (barring arcana, religion, monsters aka the useful adventurer knowledge skills). This way, the PC could reflect having background skills as a blacksmith, or engineer, or navigator.

In 3e we briefly used a house rule called mundane skills (mun-skills) equal to 2 + int mod with no x4 multiplier at first level. They went towards crafts, professions, languages (no auto languages for int anymore), and a few homebrew skills. It achieved the desired goal, but people still didn't really use their crafts and professions so we dropped the system.

 

[pemerton]

To add to what [MENTION=13650]AeroDm[/MENTION] said at #5 (which I agree with, but can't XP): I'd be looking at elements of the game already there (like Prestige Classes/Paragon Paths) and seeing how you can build on them in framing situations and the consequences of player choices and PC builds and histories.

For example, in a "persuade the duke" skill challenge, surely a Master Thief should have a fictional position very different from a Knight Commander.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Couldn't this be achieved with a system akin to Themes in 4E? I think decoupling this sort of thing from feats would be more beneficial.

 

[Celebrim]

Traditionally, at least in my games, people tend not to take feats that are "roleplaying only". Take, from 3e, the feat spell thematics. It make the wizards spells look "cooler" basically...and that's about it.

The problem being, of course, few players want to take such a feat at the expense of something useful.

Then why make them? I think you are on to something important, but I don't think were you are going with it is going to be best for your game.

One could argue "why the need for such feats?" I do admit, some dms would just let the player do "spell thematics" without any feat, as it's "just fluff".

Sure, my NPC's do it. And I pretty much wouldn't have an NPC doing something I wouldn't allow the PC's to do. If the snake blooded sorcerer wants his magic missiles to look like hissing vipers, I'm ok with that - 99.99% of the time it won't matter, and the .01% it does (NPC has a snake phobia) is not bad for the game but good for it.

Additionally, or alternately, DMs could reward these feats ad hoc. If the fighter won the duel (or did something else to earn a title), the dm could just give him the feat, over and above the system.

Thoughts?

Back in my day, we didn't need a feat to mark that a PC had gained a noble title. It was just something that happened and was took into the accounting, like the fact that the PC's were big heroes in village B because they'd saved the town, but were considered bandits in village C. The problem with having 'role playing feats' of that sort, is that if your role play is of any significance at all, you're going to be adding several of these a session. What makes a PnP game better than a cRPG (on some levels at least) is that a programmer could hardly program for all the 'role playing feats' that accumulate after a while. Favors, enemies, friends, mentors, admirers, vendettas, esteem, scorn, status, reputation, trust and every other marker of human social relationships just pile on with every NPC interaction. All have their advantages and disadvantages.

Now, that being said, the ironic thing is that I do have a 'Noble Rank' feat in the event that someone wants to begin the game as a noble with the rights pertaining to same. In fact, if you are really daring, I have a 'High Noble Rank' feat that lets you be close blood relation to a soveriegn ruler, just for those players that want to actually play a prince or princess out of a fairy tale. So, I really do see where you are going with this, but I really honestly think that after character creation you do injustice to the game to overly characterize it. In fact, one of the things that drove me away from GURPS was the implication that all of this role playing stuff had to be characterized and paid for in play. If the player wins a kingdom, or rescues the damsel in distress, I don't want to be checking to see if he has an available feat to pick up the 'Founding King' or the 'True Love' feat. It has happened, and the mechanics are secondary to that.

So in short, all my role playing feats, the ones that have 'necessary background' as part of the prerequisites are stuff that you choose to buy at first level (that is, they are Traits). This is so everyone is starting from basically the same spot and can't argue for mechanical advantages on the basis of a background. It also doesn't hurt that if you arent' sure what is going to happen, you've previously brainstormed what the likely mechanical effect of roleplaying event might be. But on the basis of what they earn in game, they can have anything that happens good or bad without paying for it, and indeed they must take what they earn whether they like it or not. If you acquire treasure, pretty soon you end up Wealthy and if you squander or throw it away you cease to be. In either case, I don't add and subtract a Trait. Likewise, once the game starts, there isn't a metagame coin so valuable that it can be used to purchase any esteem or property or followers in the shared imaginary space.* All that has to be bought with something that is real in the imaginary space.

(*As you might imagine from my insistance on this, there is no Leadership feat as well.)