Basic 5e Inspiration mechanic

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 11:44:34 AM

If the situation itself isn't interesting enough for the players to care to deal with it, why complicate and prolong a mechanical abstraction for getting it over with?

I know at least one answer: Because there are people who think "role playing" is a matter of statistical modeling, in which it's a virtue to cut the player (an alien element) out of the loop -- and there's a big overlap with people who just plain enjoy the abstraction.

Personally, if I want to be a spectator to such a model, I would rather let a computer do the drudge work instead of spending orders of magnitude longer doing it by hand.

Different strokes for different blokes -- and for different games.

Will · July 17, 2014, 11:54:54 AM

Phillip: again, you can say the same thing about combat. In D&D, how often is combat actually interesting vs. some random obstacle to get through?

Also, it helps cement a risk/reward for xp and gp system.

I've been in many 3e games where the GM shorted us on some xp and often all gp for a noncombat encounter because there were no clear guidelines. It seemed 'not right' to get xp for talking your way past a guard.

As a result, there was a strong pressure to just stab problems until the gp falls out.

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 12:03:18 PM

The old D&D game was designed by people who fairly often found the most interesting questions of a combat to be (1) Why fight? and (2) What are the consequences?

They therefore created methods of settling the matter pretty quickly, while leaving it possible to delve into deeper detail to whatever extent desired.

Will · July 17, 2014, 12:07:24 PM

I'd love to see that for everything... maybe with some sort of, oh, fractal system.

One of my complaints about the last few editions of D&D is that the degree of detail/involvement of combat is pretty rigidly set, while everything else is mostly handwaved.

I'm not seeing a big change to that in 5e, despite commentary about 'modularity.'

Some of the microlite stuff, maybe...

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 12:13:11 PM

The xp attitude is just part of the broader attitude that is just what I have been talking about. Of course people who devalue anything that's not a number-crunching exercise will be glad to have yet another thing reduced to just that!

Note: I had added this to my previous post, but that edit happened after Will's response.

Bill · July 17, 2014, 12:26:19 PM

Quote from: jadrax;769991So in an attempt to drag this on yet another tangent, what do people think of 5e's answer to skill challenges, the Group Check. Basically, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds (Round Down), the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails?

I don't know how it will feel in play, but it does seem an interesting way to handle group skill rolls. It looks to me as an attempt to deal with say, '10 pc's all make perception rolls can't really fail'

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 12:31:31 PM

Quote from: Bill;770018I don't know how it will feel in play, but it does seem an interesting way to handle group skill rolls. It looks to me as an attempt to deal with say, '10 pc's all make perception rolls can't really fail'

Reminds me of the "fumble on natural 1" rule my gang likes. With a typical 10-figure fight, somebody's throwing his weapon away or stumbling on average once per 2 rounds -- which seems increasingly silly to me at higher experience levels.

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 12:36:44 PM

One thing I find encouraging is that I gather there's no set frequency for the +1 Inspiration bonus -- a refreshing departure from the fixation on treating the game as Chess-like mathematical construct to be perfectly balanced as a sort of sterile machine.

jadrax · July 17, 2014, 12:37:36 PM

Quote from: Phillip;770019Reminds me of the "fumble on natural 1" rule my gang likes. With a typical 10-figure fight, somebody's throwing his weapon away or stumbling on average once per 2 rounds -- which seems increasingly silly to me at higher experience levels.

Yeah I only use that when people are pushing the envelope by taking obvious risks. So if your shooting someone, getting a Natural One means nothing. If your shooting someone and one of your friends is in the direct line of fire, then do not roll a 1.

Will · July 17, 2014, 12:45:10 PM

I hate to keep dragging Fate into things, but advice I'd really like to see formally written in D&D:

If it doesn't matter, STOP ROLLING.
If failure isn't interesting, DON'T ROLL.
If you just need to have a mouthpiece for an infodrop, don't be coy, just say 'ok, who gets to relay this information?'

The second and third element are more 'story game' than people might like, but there are weaker variations that can apply even in very simmy games.

Haffrung · July 17, 2014, 01:08:28 PM

Quote from: jadrax;769991So in an attempt to drag this on yet another tangent, what do people think of 5e's answer to skill challenges, the Group Check. Basically, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds (Round Down), the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails?

To see if the party successfully sneaks past some guards? Works for me. To see if they persuade the captain of the guard to let them open the gate after dark? They'll need to roleplay that shit.

Larsdangly · July 17, 2014, 01:10:41 PM

Quote from: Phillip;770011The old D&D game was designed by people who fairly often found the most interesting questions of a combat to be (1) Why fight? and (2) What are the consequences?

They therefore created methods of settling the matter pretty quickly, while leaving it possible to delve into deeper detail to whatever extent desired.

This sounds to me like a bit of revisionist history to make first-generation gamers sound more cerebral than is right. The reality is that many (maybe most) dungeons in the 70's, whether commercial or scribbled on grid paper by 15 year olds, were collections of rooms filled with monsters you were supposed to kill. You might run the dungeon in a goofy way, wandering from room to room murdering each monster in its hole. Or you might run it in a more sophisticated way where the monsters hear what is going on around them and plan and move and respond. But the idea that players stood outside the door asking 'why fight?' and 'what are the consequences?' is ridiculous.

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 01:24:04 PM

Quote from: Will;770023I hate to keep dragging Fate into things, but advice I'd really like to see formally written in D&D:

If it doesn't matter, STOP ROLLING.
If failure isn't interesting, DON'T ROLL.
If you just need to have a mouthpiece for an infodrop, don't be coy, just say 'ok, who gets to relay this information?'

The second and third element are more 'story game' than people might like, but there are weaker variations that can apply even in very simmy games.

The second is thoroughly old fashioned, inasmuch as stuff that's TOTALLY IGNORED in old rules sets can nowadays take up many pages.

"Can I make horseshoes?" in early-edition Boot Hill was like, "Sure. Meanwhile, other folks are forming a posse to go after the Winston gang."

The third is needlessly jarring. Why not just give the information, if it is at that point so little a game -- never mind an rp game -- that player strategy is irrelevant? What purpose is being served by your query? I see no point to it but dragging out something there's no reason to make more complicated.

Bill · July 17, 2014, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: Phillip;770019Reminds me of the "fumble on natural 1" rule my gang likes. With a typical 10-figure fight, somebody's throwing his weapon away or stumbling on average once per 2 rounds -- which seems increasingly silly to me at higher experience levels.

And, a skilled dual wielder or fighter with many attacks fumbles very often with a natural 1 fumble.

I don't like fumbles that are more likely for the most skilled fighters

Phillip · July 17, 2014, 01:35:35 PM

Quote from: Larsdangly;770027This sounds to me like a bit of revisionist history to make first-generation gamers sound more cerebral than is right. The reality is that many (maybe most) dungeons in the 70's, whether commercial or scribbled on grid paper by 15 year olds, were collections of rooms filled with monsters you were supposed to kill. You might run the dungeon in a goofy way, wandering from room to room murdering each monster in its hole. Or you might run it in a more sophisticated way where the monsters hear what is going on around them and plan and move and respond. But the idea that players stood outside the door asking 'why fight?' and 'what are the consequences?' is ridiculous.

That 'idea' is just your own straw man parody, so of course it's ridiculous!

What I actually wrote of is not, because

1) We actually played/play the game and it actually did/does reduce to a very simple, quick abstraction -- just long enough to give decision points as to use of magic, withdrawal/negotiation/etc. -- whenever we want it to. All the chrome added later is purely optional.

2) The reason given is in the DMG, as well as articles in The Dragon.