Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8643686" data-attributes="member: 16814">The option is a major redesign as well.&nbsp; I'm not looking at this as &quot;there's a precedent&quot; I'm looking at it as to what it's actually doing in game design.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It takes a maybe resources and turns it into a reliable resource (which is itself a large change).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That's also huge.As for players playing according to BIFTs -- not in evidence.&nbsp; In fact, a large number of respondents on this board have said they don't even pay attention to them.&nbsp; And that's because the whole BIFTs/Inspiration are bolt on and very shallow as presented.&nbsp;&nbsp; They're intriguing on the D&amp;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.&nbsp; And the basic presentation of them (ie, no options) is very weak.&nbsp; The GM advice goes from &quot;ignore this&quot; to &quot;award however you like.&quot;&nbsp; And it's all GM overhead -- something else the GM has to manage and execute on alongside all the other bits.&nbsp; This is the basic design of this rule, and it's not great.&nbsp; Not great at all.&nbsp; It's actively bad compared to things it could have done.&nbsp; It's actually actively bad compared to the houserule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8643686, member: 16814"] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification