D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Thomas Shey]

Everything is just a claim. "There is no one true way" and "the most important thing is fun" is equally just a claim. You're arguing against me trying set a standard by claiming it violates your own standard.

Sorry, but no. If you want to set a standard, you have to set it. Otherwise there isn't one. Its just what you want, and you're elevating it to a general good.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

What kind of game doesn’t!? Ease of getting cover/concealment, getting through small spaces, grappling, etc are all affected by size, and not just size category.

I have never played, or even read a tabletop game that demands that level of granularity. All those things being affected by a one foot difference in height is way too granular for me.

Eh. Nah I’m good.

Good for you, but as far as I'm concerned the age of simulationism is over. I'd go boot up ARMA 3 or RDR2 if I wanted that level of realism.

 

[jayoungr]

That sounds like a terrible gaming experience. I'm sorry you had to sit through that.


I also appreciate you not reading my question as being snarky. I was fearful I didn't express myself well by asking it.

Thanks, and no, your question was fine!

It's not a competition as the guidance is for everyone to receive inspiration roughly once per session. It's also a reward that flows freely among players.

The currency in TBZ is supposed to "flow freely among players" too. And you can tell when you're getting "pity bennies" that are being awarded only because someone has realized you haven't gotten any yet.

I totally get that inspiration as written works great for some players and some tables. I'm only explaining why I don't want to use it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's about character action, not player acting, so it equally favors both descriptive and active roleplaying.

Doesn't change the fact that this sort of thing almost inevitably favors the "loud" roleplaying over the stuff that's more subtle. That's a simple consequence of human attention.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah, so you're also against any XP for fulfilling character goals

No.

and roleplaying XP awards.

Yes, for the most part; for two reasons:

--- it works against the quieter and-or less assertive people at the table, who will over the long term lose out on more and more of these xp awards to the point where their PCs are a level or more behind those of the louder/more assertive players.
--- it's simply too easy as a DM to slip into favouritism, by being more quick to reward one player/PC over another because you happen to prefer that player (or PC).

Roleplaying is it's own reward, there should never be any mechanical benefit for roleplaying at all.

As I tend to eschew "social mechanics" in the game the benefit for good RP isn't mechanical but it still exists, in that you're making the game more entertaining and (I hope!) interesting and engaging for all involved.

 

[mrpopstar]

Depends entirely on the situation. Sometimes a creative solution might give a bonus, not specifically because it's creative but because in the in-game situation the proposed out-of-the-box solution gives better odds of success. Other times, a creative solution might worsen the odds and that too will be reflected, this time with a penalty (though sometimes these high-risk high-reward ideas can be hella cool when they do come off).

What I'm taking from the discussion overall is that it requires a Dungeon Master with social skill and emotional intelligence to effectively use advantage/disadvantage in this way. You have to be able to sense that you can deliver on anticipation or excitement with a guiding hand.

Rewarding advantage for creativity is saying to the math "this should work" because your intuition is telling you "having this work will be a big win for tonight's gaming experience."

I like that such an opportunity exists for me as the DM, and that it is covered by the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. This is one of the many reasons I think, if you’re going to have Background Characteristics grant Inspiration in 5e, it should be the player’s call what counts instead of the DM’s. A simple “once per characteristic per session, you can claim Inspiration when you feel you’ve acted in accordance with that characteristic” suffices.

Unless your players are real-l-ly good at self-policing (which IME many are not, self included ) this is rather wide open to abuse, I think.

Better, perhaps, would be to require the other players to agree to each claim; but even that could be a minefield for arguments.

 

[Lanefan]

I have never played, or even read a tabletop game that demands that level of granularity. All those things being affected by a one foot difference in height is way too granular for me.

Such things wouldn't ever be spelled out in the printed rules for any game, if only because to cover all the possible what-ifs would make the rulebooks' word count slightly higher than the collected works of Shakespeare.

Where it comes up is in DM adjudication. Some DMs - myself included - do adjudicate to that degree of granularity when it seems appropriate; others don't, and were I in a game run by one such I'd likely find it rather disappointing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless your players are real-l-ly good at self-policing (which IME many are not, self included ) this is rather wide open to abuse, I think.

It’s clearly open for players to claim Inspiration for any reason, even if other players and/or the DM don’t agree that the triggering action was consistent with the characteristic in question. What’s the abuse though? The most a player can get out of it is advantage on up to 5 rolls per session. Certainly not a game-breaking benefit. That the players don’t need the DM’s or other players’ approval to do so is by design.

Better, perhaps, would be to require the other players to agree to each claim; but even that could be a minefield for arguments.

That would most definitely be a minefield for arguments. Whether it’s better depends on your goals. If your goal is to enforce the table’s idea of how each character should be portrayed, even if that means spending table time debating over what someone else’s character “would” or “wouldn’t” do, then sure, it’s better. For me, such RP-policing is something I want to avoid at all costs. Allowing players to give themselves advantage on a few rolls per session is well worth eliminating that factor to me.

 

[mrpopstar]

Doesn't change the fact that this sort of thing almost inevitably favors the "loud" roleplaying over the stuff that's more subtle. That's a simple consequence of human attention.

Maybe so!