D&D (2024) Oh Ye of Little FAITB

[cranberry]

I've always viewed them as backstory aids for people who need some ideas.

I personally can do without them, and I don't require it as part of building a PC.

 

[Hriston]

Mearls talks about it around 1:21:20 1:21:20 in 5 generations of d&d design panel Basically there was some kind of push component

I can see why “they didn’t let him” put what he’s describing into 5E. Make this saving throw or the DM gets to control your character wouldn’t feel right to me for decisions the character is supposedly making. What was published instead was Inspiration. I think there should be more advice for how to use it in the mode of a compel in Fate, which is how I like to make personal characteristics matter in my 5E games.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

I can see why “they didn’t let him” put what he’s describing into 5E. Make this saving throw or the DM gets to control your character wouldn’t feel right to me for decisions the character is supposedly making. What was published instead was Inspiration. I think there should be more advice for how to use it in the mode of a compel in Fate, which is how I like to make personal characteristics matter in my 5E games.

I've run a lot of fate where something similar to that kind of push mechanic is a core part of play for everyone at the table. It very much does not fit with anything resembling d&d I agree, but it doesn't fit because both parts of it individually clash with d&d on their own.

We have that half because Wotc tried to pretend that player needs and gm needs could be looked at in complete isolation then they could worry about the gm after finalizing and printing the "well it's kinda useful" player half sometime down the line didn't work for 2014 and 2024 seems to be trying for it again

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, to be fair, there are also those of us who don't think that our characters can (or should) be summed up in 4-6 pithy one-liners.

Far better to have a two word descriptor when people can't even agree on what Lawful means heh.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Far better to have a two word descriptor when people can't even agree on what Lawful means heh.

I like alignment no better than I like "FAITB".

Although I don't mind alignment when it's thought of as philosophical "factions" - ie, the character chooses to be part of an alignment, and to attempt to adhere to it. Or, they are unaligned. Neutral may mean unaligned, or it may mean aligned with neutrality. One of those two could be called "true" neutral - I'm not quite sure which.

But no, above I meant that I generally put much more thought into who my character is as a person. "FAITB" isn't worth worrying about when you do that. Nor is alignment.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I do like the idea that alignment is something that requires an actual effort to align yourself with cosmic forces.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My preference is to see them actually integrated in the rest of the game, at the same level, or moreso, as Alignment is. It seems to me that Alignment has been watered down: it's a suggestion more often than it's a rule. You can't cast Detect Evil to find evil creatures, but you can detect evil- or good-leaning creature types.

yes, while alignment should always be descriptive of a character i'd want it to mean and be more than just two letters scrawled in a corner of your character sheet, for it to have actual mechanical impact, not in the 'oh you can't take this option if you're not LG' or 'you changed alignments now you're stuck with a penalty' but constructive stuff, maybe certain entities are more likely to seek you out for assistance or see you as a threat

Another example: Bonds/Ideals and Paladins. Why does a Paladin choose an Oath when she already has, in theory, a Bond and an Ideal? Shouldn't those determine what her bonus features are?

BIFT have always just been to me somewhere to keep track of your character quirks, mostly as an aid for new inexperienced players to fall back on if they don't know how they might react in any given situation, you don't need to use the pregenerated ones if you know who your character is going to be, but your build isn't going to inform everything about who your character is as a person, there might be some overlap there though.

BIFT and alignment build on each other to inform the nuance of your character, but they're still just descriptions of what supposedly is already meant to be there so i don't know why so many people feel constrained by them.

 

[Parmandur]

I like alignment no better than I like "FAITB".

Although I don't mind alignment when it's thought of as philosophical "factions" - ie, the character chooses to be part of an alignment, and to attempt to adhere to it. Or, they are unaligned. Neutral may mean unaligned, or it may mean aligned with neutrality. One of those two could be called "true" neutral - I'm not quite sure which.

But no, above I meant that I generally put much more thought into who my character is as a person. "FAITB" isn't worth worrying about when you do that. Nor is alignment.

IMO, Alignment is more useful for a DM than players, as a shorthand for notes or a Setting/Adventure product to quickly indicate how an NPC will react and interact with the party.

 

[tetrasodium]

yes, while alignment should always be descriptive of a character i'd want it to mean and be more than just two letters scrawled in a corner of your character sheet, for it to have actual mechanical impact, not in the 'oh you can't take this option if you're not LG' or 'you changed alignments now you're stuck with a penalty' but constructive stuff, maybe certain entities are more likely to seek you out for assistance or see you as a threat

BIFT have always just been to me somewhere to keep track of your character quirks, mostly as an aid for new inexperienced players to fall back on if they don't know how they might react in any given situation, you don't need to use the pregenerated ones if you know who your character is going to be, but your build isn't going to inform everything about who your character is as a person, there might be some overlap there though.

BIFT and alignment build on each other to inform the nuance of your character, but they're still just descriptions of what supposedly is already meant to be there so i don't know why so many people feel constrained by them.

I agree with that bolded bit. For all the problems with palladium's rifts system has, alignment is one area where it managed to have a truly great jewel. It does that by writing the alignment options as if they are being written for normal ttrpg players rather than a decades old mashup of two good/bad guy flags from (appendix N?) sources I forget. . They talk about the kinds of things a PC might be willing to do (ie help villagers with/without expecting payment, lie/extort/blackmail/rough up/outright torture/look the other way/etc).

With that said it does a nice job of handling wouldn't unless without can't because... Well... Because then steps back enough for the group to work out an unless or alternative among themselves.

 

[JAMUMU]

The only things I dislike about the BIFT set-up is that it makes me want to fire up a smoke (bifter=cigarette/joint in certain dialects of UK English) and b) as a Chaotic type, I'd prefer multiple-choice BIFTs that change from town to town.