D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Swarmkeeper]

The option is a major redesign as well. I'm not looking at this as "there's a precedent" I'm looking at it as to what it's actually doing in game design. Moving a resource from GM fiat (with all that entails) to player determined with only very light oversight up to 4 times a session, that's a very large change on the design front. It takes a maybe resources and turns it into a reliable resource (which is itself a large change). It takes an authority that's traditionally and otherwise seated strongly with the GM (rewards come from the GM) and moves it to the player side. That's also huge.

If you say so. A precedent in the rules doesn't support an argument, so we conveniently set it aside.

As for players playing according to BIFTs -- not in evidence. In fact, a large number of respondents on this board have said they don't even pay attention to them. And that's because the whole BIFTs/Inspiration are bolt on and very shallow as presented.

Are we now citing some "large number" of ENWorld vocal posters, a sliver of a sliver of the 5e player population, as evidence for an unsupported conclusion? Again, you surprise me.

They're intriguing on the D&D side (if that's you major experience in RPGs) because they're something rather different from the traditional, but they're really weak example of things other games have been crushing all along. And the basic presentation of them (ie, no options) is very weak. The GM advice goes from "ignore this" to "award however you like." And it's all GM overhead -- something else the GM has to manage and execute on alongside all the other bits. This is the basic design of this rule, and it's not great. Not great at all. It's actively bad compared to things it could have done. It's actually actively bad compared to the houserule.

And now you argue that the RAW mechanic is onerous on the GM... agreed! So maybe there's our chance to find common ground.

At the end of the day, no matter whose design principles it may offend, Inspiration is a good, quality mechanic for us. And I've described how and why we've tweaked it (h/t @iserith) for better performance at our table. I think I'll leave it there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Let's make this really specific:

IMO, Inspiration is a good rule.
IMO, tweaking it so the burden is off the DM and instead, the players award their own Inspiration (limited to once per trait per session), makes it a better rule.

Where is the issue in any of this?

The issue is that Inspiration stinks.

Advantage on a roll for playing one’s character in some way consistent with their BIFTs is just meh. For anyone wanting robust mechanics in this area, it falls very short. For those that don’t want such mechanics, it does nothing.

The issue isn’t with tracking inspiration, so the proposed fix doesn’t do much. The issue is that it does so little, for something that should be played anyway.

In my opinion, the fact that every 5e character that’s ever been made is supposed to have a Flaw, and they could go an entire campaign without that Flaw ever mattering, is terrible. The same with their Traits, Ideals, and Bonds. They can all be ignored forever and it won’t ever impact play.

That’s just lackluster design. It’s not what I’d call quality by any stretch.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Funny, the Inspiration system could be considered high quality if you considered that it was meant to be modular aka being able to be ignored without impacting play...

The issue is that Inspiration stinks.

Advantage on a roll for playing one’s character in some way consistent with their BIFTs is just meh. For anyone wanting robust mechanics in this area, it falls very short. For those that don’t want such mechanics, it does nothing.

The issue isn’t with tracking inspiration, so the proposed fix doesn’t do much. The issue is that it does so little, for something that should be played anyway.

In my opinion, the fact that every 5e character that’s ever been made is supposed to have a Flaw, and they could go an entire campaign without that Flaw ever mattering. The same with their Traits, Ideals, and Bonds. They can all be ignored forever and it won’t ever impact play.

That’s just lackluster design. It’s not what I’d call quality by any stretch.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Funny, the Inspiration system could be considered high quality if you considered that it was meant to be modular aka being able to be ignored without impacting play...

Sure, but being able to totally ignore something doesn’t speak to its quality. I’d say if modularity is a desirable element, then we have to look at both cases. With and without.

Sure, Inspiration can be dropped with no impact on play. But including it… as I said, it stinks. It’s a half measure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Funny, the Inspiration system could be considered high quality if you considered that it was meant to be modular aka being able to be ignored without impacting play...

There's a pretty big difference between "modular," where there's a solid, useful system that isn't necessarily what every player might want from the game, and ineffectual, where there's a system that's there whether or not you care about it, but it's so weakly supported that it's easy to simply forget that it's part of the game.

The former is a perk, supporting people who want something beyond or tweaked from the baseline experience. The latter is weak design, but in a way that is easy to ignore. Like a single drafty room in a house that can just be closed up and never used. That doesn't make it a good thing to have a drafty room--but it won't make your stay in the house unpleasant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you say so. A precedent in the rules doesn't support an argument, so we conveniently set it aside.

Not it at all. This is a very bad misrepresentation of my point. The precedent (ie, the optional "players award" inspiration rule) ALSO dramatically alters the rule. That it is a precedent is beside my point, not something I feel the need to wave away because it counters it.

Are we now citing some "large number" of ENWorld vocal posters, a sliver of a sliver of the 5e player population, as evidence for an unsupported conclusion? Again, you surprise me.

Do the work yourself, then. There's been a poll and a few threads discussing it. The largest response group is that BIFTs are largely ignored. I did not think this is controversial. However, if I am wrong, it shouldn't be hard to disprove me, and I'd welcome that evidence.

And now you argue that the RAW mechanic is onerous on the GM... agreed! So maybe there's our chance to find common ground.

Well, certainly not in calling it a "good" mechanic. Onerous doesn't sound like a quality a "good" mechanic should have!

At the end of the day, no matter whose design principles it may offend, Inspiration is a good, quality mechanic for us. And I've described how and why we've tweaked it (h/t @iserith) for better performance at our table. I think I'll leave it there.

It's good for you after you changed it. It wasn't good before you changed it (you said "onerous" above), it sounds like. Inspiration, as presented, is not a great mechanic.

For what it's worth, I've used Iserith's rule before. It didn't catch on well, even when I encouraged players. These are the same players that were extremely aggressive in Blades in the Dark. I dunno, I don't think it resonates much. My personal issue with the whole Inspiration BIFTs things is that BIFTs only integrate with Inspiration, which only works if the GM enables it (or you change the rule). So, largely, without houserules or the GM being invested, they just don't do anything at all. As a roleplaying aid, I fail to see how they're more or less useful that a paragraph of backstory, which is tech that has been around since probably the start of RPGs. It's only fodder for Inspiration. And, then, Inspiration is less than... inspiring... as a tool. Advantage is fairly easy to get without Inspiration, so it's useful in fewer cases than would be initially assumed. All that said, the houserule makes it a better systems by transforming it into a reliably obtained player side resource. That, however, really only engages certain play approaches -- there are many common approaches that would find that idea to be a negative, and be right to do so (given their goals).


*I meant to include this earlier, but I do not @ Iserith because he currently has me blocked so it's an irrelevant extra character -- he won't see it anyway. Feel free to tag him in on your side, if you wish. I actually think his version of Inspiration is the most functional -- as a reliable player-side resource, it's not terrible. Totally unconnected to the rest of the game, still, but most functional version.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We've also gotten far afield, now arguing the efficacy of Inspiration (low).

My point still stands, saying that a rule is good but then immediately saying how you've changed it is extremely similar to the OP argument that's ad populum. It's claiming a thing is good because you assume it's working well for others when you've clearly felt it didn't work well enough to not be changed. I'm not sure why this is done. Like, really, honestly, stumped why people would say these things outside of attempting to stay within the window of discourse of the perceived in-group. Open to other reasons.

 

[Hussar]

Well, getting whacked and dropping in HP is a pretty good indicator that you can do something about it. Also, dont let GMs off the hook, they forget about it too.

Ahh, now I see why I don't have an issue.

I play on Virtual Tabletop. There's a HONKING BIG STAR on your character portrait denoting if you have inspiration or not and it is easy to remember as a DM when someone doesn't have it and you should start giving out more.

 

[Hussar]

While this hasn't been much of an issue, who is actually saying that 5e is badly designed or of bad quality?

I could see making that argument about this or that mechanic. The stealth rules are not well designed. They basically just washed their hands of it and told tables to sort it out. That's not quality design by any metric, regardless of how well someone might like it. You cannot claim quality for something that a thing does not possess. If the mechanics of a game are largely silent on how to resolve something, that's not a quality design.

Claiming that it is is just a rhetorical gambit to shut down conversation. "Oh, well, it's better to not design anything for that bit, because it is better to force DM's to play armchair game designers. Since I don't have any problems with it, you shouldn't either. If you do have any problems, it's just because you are such an inferior DM than me." is the basic message being conveyed.

And then sprinkle that liberally over any conversation that deals with trying to actually come up with mechanics for resolving whatever that bit is, and then double down by claiming that if people actually wanted those mechanics, 5e wouldn't sell as well as it does.

Did I miss anything? It's unbelievably self serving and 100% bad faith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While this hasn't been much of an issue, who is actually saying that 5e is badly designed or of bad quality?

I have not, technically, made either claim. But I have laid out my reasons why I think 5e has a lot of weak design in a previous post. Be forewarned, it's my usual logorrhea.