D&D 5E Traits, Flaws, and Bonds L&L May 5th

[howandwhy99]

If we want a game about playing a pterodactyl, presumably the rules should define what a pterodactyl or define player actions in the game in such a way that acting like pterodactyl arises from play naturally.

If we want a competitive game, the rules (especially opposing game objectives) should be defined in such a way to to make competition a common strategy that occurs during play.

If we want fictional personae to be performed by players during our games, then what constitutes personalities in the game rules should be defined or at least games should be designed in such a way that those personalities arise from play naturally.

Suggestions on how to play a game, which are then not part of the rules, aren't necessary to playing the game. At best, they help some players get half way there. "Orc Poker" shouldn't be poker with the suggestion to act like an orc. The mechanics need to back it up orcish behavior.

The difficult thing here is, personality is an aspect of behavior and strategies in a game are player behaviors within that game. They are two different philosophical outlooks addressing human behavior with completely different understandings.

Games can be designed to enable some strategies over others. They do this according to how objectives, game pieces and field of play, and actions are defined in the rules. Strategies aren't supposed to be promoted behaviors. Players are understood to be under no influence about how they wish to play the game. IOW, you are playing badly, if you're following the agreed upon rules. Instead, playing the game leads to players recognizing more optimal strategies to obtain the stated objectives. Whether players actually take those strategies is up to the Player.

 

[Mistwell]

The mechanical benefit is the inspiration points that can be used later in connection with a trait, bond, or flaw. This gives a benefit for good role playing, but it also remains neutral as to which traits, bonds, and flaws you choose. Whatever you choose, as long as you role play to those things, you can get the inspiration point. So no need to balance between the traits, bonds and flaws - they all gain the same benefit for your character, and there is nothing to balance.

 

[SkidAce]

Background can also have surprising additional uses... You can have an NPC with a background but no class. Just assign ability scores, pick a background and set an approximate "virtual level" for the purpose of determining the proficiency bonus, and the NPC is good to go. No need to make your world-famous master chef a 20th level fighter or (even worse) a 20th level commoner.

I like the sound of this.

What I'm doing now is making them a first level (or 0 level) NPC and then establishing a certain level of proficiency in the skill they should have...i.e. a profession bonus, usually +1 to +5.

 

[Ratskinner]

That's the DM's fault..

I can understand that point of view, but I think a well-written set of rules won't put him on the spot anymore than it will the players.

Social encounters can be as dangerous as any combat encounter... hell, they can be worse.

Aspects/traits/bonds/whatever SHOULD get the players in trouble, when used right create complications which can not always be defeated with a sword. Reward those choices, reward players for getting in trouble.

I don't disagree, but without mechanical leverage in non-combat situations....it gets tossed up into the air. Then, in a game like D&D with a "survivalist" bent and long history of DM/player antagonism problems...it leads to tension. Which often, IME, leads to player's turning every encounter into a combat encounter. Also, that's fine for Fate's Compels, but there is also the whole issue of invokes.

I would tweak the rules so fellow players & DM's can trigger another characters aspect/trait/bond/whatever... the heroes can spend a point (fate or whatever) to say "hell no" or they can "suck it up" and get an additional point.

I would prefer:
a) some social/skill mechanic that can be affected in a standard way to mimic a Fate Invoke.
b) standardized/defined "compels" for each trait.

barring that I think its best to just leave it up in the air.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My view is: can't it vary from table to table and character to character?

Yes, and it absolutely should. I prefer "acolyte" to "priest" because it is much easier to have that flexibility with a background name/concept that may, but need not, imply an ongoing profession. It's the inclusive phrasing.

And the main reason we are debating these sorts of minimally important quibbles is simply that they're mostly finished with the game and haven't been giving us a lot of meaty material to tear apart.

The mechanical benefit is the inspiration points that can be used later in connection with a trait, bond, or flaw. This gives a benefit for good role playing, but it also remains neutral as to which traits, bonds, and flaws you choose. Whatever you choose, as long as you role play to those things, you can get the inspiration point. So no need to balance between the traits, bonds and flaws - they all gain the same benefit for your character, and there is nothing to balance.

Yes, yes, and yes. I guess a lot of people weren't around when this was talked about extensively on multiple occasions by the designers months ago.

There is a mechanical aspect, it is core, but it is extremely easy to ignore if you aren't interested. (The jury is still out for me on how I plan to use it.)

I like the sound of this.

What I'm doing now is making them a first level (or 0 level) NPC and then establishing a certain level of proficiency in the skill they should have...i.e. a profession bonus, usually +1 to +5.

I'm currently thinking of just treating them as one of the default NPC creature listings, such as commoner or warrior, or whatever else is in the MM that fits. Then adjusting their ability scores. Then giving them a background. Then applying expertise to skills that make sense. Last we heard, proficiency is going to start at +2, and expertise is double proficiency. So if I give a typical sage a 16 Int, proficiency in three knowledge skills, and then apply expertise to one of those fields, we have a character with a +5 to a couple knowledge skills, and a +7 to his best one. He's definitely going to be better than low-level PCs in his area of expertise, and even better than most mid-level PCs who aren't focused on that skill. So he fulfills his role as a sage quite well. All while following very similar rules to PCs, without being built as a full PC-class build.

So MM entry + background + expertise = satisfying generic NPCs for most professions.

 

[fjw70]

Here is an interesting tidbit from the article.

For a D&D edition releasing in 2014

A few observations.


(1) It appears they are still releasing 5e this year (for those that had doubts).


(2) He doesn't refer to the edition as 5e or Next. They seem to be implementing the "only call it D&D" strategy.


(3) He says "a" edition and not "the" edition. Will there be multiple editions releasing this year? Probably not, but that was interesting wording.

 

[am181d]

If we want fictional personae to be performed by players during our games, then what constitutes personalities in the game rules should be defined or at least games should be designed in such a way that those personalities arise from play naturally.

Historical precedent says that this is not necessarily so.

If it helps, consider the difference between a book of rules about Chess and a book of Chess strategies. The rules of D&D describe the activity of role-playing your character, and there is various supplemental information that provides you with tips on how to do this well.

D&D manuals frequently serve the purpose of both rulebook and strategy guide.

 

[Ichneumon]

Here is an interesting tidbit from the article.





A few observations.


(1) It appears they are still releasing 5e this year (for those that had doubts).


(2) He doesn't refer to the edition as 5e or Next. They seem to be implementing the "only call it D&D" strategy.


(3) He says "a" edition and not "the" edition. Will there be multiple editions releasing this year? Probably not, but that was interesting wording.

Good to be reassured we'll be getting our grubby mitts on 5e before we next have to sing Auld Lang Syne.

Using 'a' doesn't necessarily imply extra editions ("For the D&D edition..." would've sounded a bit stiff), but we are getting the Tyranny of Dragons edition, and the Starter Set (which may be the same thing).