TheRPGSite

So the Basic PDF mentions Inspiration.

This is a sort of combination plot hook and character incentive/reward/trigger mechanic.

The basis is that the DM rewards an inspiration point for RPing one of your traints/flaws/ etc.

You can then spend it later to gain an advantage. The wording though is a little vague/contradictory on wether you can use it at any time, or only when pertaining to a trait/etc. But when used. Grants an advantage to an attack, save or other roll.

These points cannot be stockpiled.

You can though give your inspiration to someone else if you think they RPed well.

Odd that it is not part of the playtest. I assume there is more rules for how it works in the Starter?

Overall this reminds me of how older editions of D&D gave the DM options to reward EXP for good role playing. Palladium Games does this as well and the Next Playtest packet also had a section about granting EXP for good RP. Except here its granting a boost that can be used later.

I think it is an interesting idea and has the potential to either work well at a table, or degrade into grandstanding to gain it.

Personally Id view the point as what its called. Inspiration. The character did something well and felt uplifted for it. Later they recalled that moment and got a little surge.

The trading of the point is a little odd at first. But I think it can be viewed as recounting to the other character that inspiring moment and it has the same effect on that other person. Kind of like in some movies, comics, or stories where someone recounts a highpoint and later it somehow triggers an idea that works.

I think played that way it feels more logical in use. Otherwise it would feel a little odd to me in play and I would not be so keen to use it.

Anyone else have views on how theyd handle it for their table?

Aside from the inevitable "Well I hate it and Im not using it!" quips. I agree it feels too gamey and could disrupt even. But I believe there are ways to view and play it that fit.

Yeah, the one thing that isn't clear is whether you are supposed to spend your inspiration point in the same scene/situation in which you role played in a way that earned it, or if you can save it for later. I'm tempted to do the latter, just so I don't have to police the whole thing.

... it sounds almost exactly like Fate points, except that with Fate you're supposed to integrate the expenditure of the point into what's happening.

Since it can't be stockpiled I see no issue and since another player can gift hers away that takes the pressure off the introverts and playing up to the DM. And it'd be easy to cap if there was obvious grandstanding.

I think it's a bad idea. You don't reward roleplaying, because roleplaying *is* the reward. However, if instead you give advantage to anyone who comes up with an inspired idea, that would work.

Quote from: talysman;766236I think it's a bad idea. You don't reward roleplaying, because roleplaying *is* the reward. However, if instead you give advantage to anyone who comes up with an inspired idea, that would work.

Advantage is obvious and mostly basic tactics. Inspiration is actually for real playing to your personality and flaws which will likely give you disadvantage. And it's strategic thinking ie. a really good idea or roleplaying as you seem to define it.

What?  It gets your panties in a bunch that a player gets 1 floating roll good for multiple situations until she uses it? Hell just give them a renewable action or fate point if it bothers your sensibilities so much.

I'll give you advantage if you roleplay to my standard....fuck you and your dog. What makes this different and important is that it's not completely under DM control but the table's control. And completely optional in any case so just shut up ok?

Quote from: robiswrong;766214... it sounds almost exactly like Fate points, except that with Fate you're supposed to integrate the expenditure of the point into what's happening.

Yes, thats how I plan to play and GM it. Play the point and narrate now that experience that gaine me the somehow inspired this clever idea or bolstered my spirits enough to get that advantage.

Quote from: talysman;766236I think it's a bad idea. You don't reward roleplaying, because roleplaying *is* the reward. However, if instead you give advantage to anyone who comes up with an inspired idea, that would work.

Its the carrot on the stick approach. It has the potential to coax players to actually participate a little more. And like some other elements in Next, it is aimed more at the player new to RPing rather than the veteran. But it allows the veteran to help others if they so desire.

And yeah. Getting it for neet plans and such is another way to play it.

I think we will be seeing quite a few interpretations and approaches over time to how to apply it. If at all. Like the encounter construction rules Mearls laid out yesterday. Its value or even use depends on the players.

Quote from: talysman;766236I think it's a bad idea. You don't reward roleplaying, because roleplaying *is* the reward. However, if instead you give advantage to anyone who comes up with an inspired idea, that would work.

Someone was saying on another thread thread they basically viewed this as selling role play to those people who see D&D more about mechanical optimisation than actually playing a role.

The worst game I was ever in was a 3.5 game, and it included the teenage GM asking me not to talk in character as it freaked him out... by underpinning role play with at least a sliver of mechanical reward, hopefully that experience will never happen to another gamer.

ow... Probably would have fainted from shock if hed ever seen a LARP or someone showed up in costume. aheh.

I think Mearls and whomever made a good decision when they placed the limiter on just one inspiration.

Quote from: jadrax;766305...
The worst game I was ever in was a 3.5 game, and it included the teenage GM asking me not to talk in character as it freaked him out... by underpinning role play with at least a sliver of mechanical reward, hopefully that experience will never happen to another gamer.

I had a similar experience, though I was GMing.  One of the players had never even conceived of the idea that roleplaying meant acting in character.  To him it was all "he/she/they say(s)..." and afterward he took me aside and told me he wasn't comfortable with the way we gamed as it was nothing like how he had gamed before and it kind of embarrassed him.  And this wasn't a new gamer, he was in his 30s and I had been playing wargames with this guy for years and we had talked about rpgs he had played on many occasions before he finally showed up for a game with me.  Apparently no one he gamed with had "acted in character" ever before.  We just went back to wargames after that.

That ends up being a preference thing.

I know some players who use second person all the time. But my local group tends to switch depending on the situation.

Combat it might be "Samas swings his sword at the blink dog." but with interaction it switches to "I walk up to the tavern keeper and say..." or even switching modes depending on the situation. For us trying to force a mode would be more immersion breaking than as is. Things flow rather than being forced. Like ammo tracking, etc.

Different play at different tables as usual.

Quote from: Omega;766256And like some other elements in Next, it is aimed more at the player new to RPing rather than the veteran.

Bad aim, I think: It's the veterans who've flushed themselves down the abstraction-crunching
drain who demand this. Newbs have no reason to expect it.

It seems most likely to reinforce the bad attitude they'll pick up from said old hands anyway.

Quote from: Phillip;766324Bad aim, I think: It's the veterans who've flushed themselves down the abstraction-crunching
drain who demand this. Newbs have no reason to expect it.

It seems most likely to reinforce the bad attitude they'll pick up from said old hands anyway.

Possible but I know that it would have helped me immensely when I started out because they were all veterans and I had no obvious handle to hold on to while I learned to walk.

Quote from: Marleycat;766339Possible but I know that it would have helped me immensely when I started out because they were all veterans and I had no obvious handle to hold on to while I learned to walk.

I feel pretty confident in saying that for most people, keeping things straightforwardly similar to what they already know is the best course. What they already know is that in real life, acting out personal eccentricities does not tend to improve technical performance unless there is in fact some sort of cause and effect relationship.

One does not exhibit one's character -- especially aspects regarded as flaws -- in order to get a benefit handout from a magic vending machine that miraculously grants success in unrelated endeavors!

One acts in character because it is one's character. In a game of let's pretend, one chooses a given persona because it is fun!

If it's not fun, if it's like being required to eat brussels sprouts  in order to get something else, then WTF would you want to force it on your friends in a social engagement the whole point of which is entertainment?!

Quote from: Phillip;766348I feel pretty confident in saying that for most people, keeping things straightforwardly similar to what they already know is the best course. What they already know is that in real life, acting out personal eccentricities does not tend to improve technical performance unless there is in fact some sort of cause and effect relationship.

One does not exhibit one's character -- especially aspects regarded as flaws -- in order to get a benefit handout from a magic vending machine that miraculously grants success in unrelated endeavors!

One acts in character because it is one's character. In a game of let's pretend, one chooses a given persona because it is fun!

If it's not fun, if it's like being required to eat brussels sprouts  in order to get something else, then WTF would you want to force it on your friends in a social engagement the whole point of which is entertainment?!

But if you are encouraged to do it by a magical vending machine reward , like eating vegetables so you can have ice cream later, you might end up actually liking vegetables....

The biggest barrier to enjoying anything is not trying it in the first place.

The only people I've seen "not trying it" are the nitwits whose fucked-up attitude is what this rule actually incentivizes. This is the freaking perpetual-poverty welfare program for role playing.

Hero Wars turned out not to be my cup of tea, but I think it was spot on in not calling out character traits as 'disadvantages' needing compensation. If they get 'spotlight' time, deliver an extra helping of fun, that is its own reward -- regardless of whether it comes about by "winning the wargame" or not!

Quote from: Marleycat;766339Possible but I know that it would have helped me immensely when I started out because they were all veterans and I had no obvious handle to hold on to while I learned to walk.

and that's why they don't give babies crutches, cause otherwise, they don't learn to walk. ;)

Quote from: Phillip;766372The only people I've seen "not trying it" are the nitwits whose fucked-up attitude is what this rule actually incentivizes. This is the freaking perpetual-poverty welfare program for role playing.

hyperbole?

Quote from: jibbajibba;766368But if you are encouraged to do it by a magical vending machine reward , like eating vegetables so you can have ice cream later, you might end up actually liking vegetables....

The biggest barrier to enjoying anything is not trying it in the first place.

Yeah but you're not actually trying it are you?  Are you playing the role of Cormac the Barbarian, when you narrate that as Cormac sees the Winged Ape, his Bond to Belinda makes him charge forward to avenge her or are you playing a combination of the role of reader and author as Howard himself was when he wrote Queen of the Black Coast?

When the GM tells you your rage for your lost love gives you Inspiration and you can choose to spend your Inspiration to get a mechanical advantage is Cormac hearing that or are you?  Does Cormac have any idea what the hell Advantage is, of course he doesn't.  If you are overcome with anger yourself playing Cormac, and charging the Winged Ape regardless of the consequences in a red rage because he killed your love, THEN you're roleplaying Cormac.
 
When you're sitting there deciding whether or not to spend the Inspiration effect you're NOT roleplaying Cormac by any definition of the term that fits.  (Cue Soviet in 3, 2, 1...)

All the mechanic does, as all such mechanics do, (which is why narrative games use them) is reinforce an OOC outlook, either with a nod to 4th wall genre emulation, seeing things with dramatic logic, to outright narrative control.

This is not Mearls trying to make "non-combat" rules.  Non-combat rules are things like gaming set proficiencies.  Since the whole point of Inspiration is to be gaining advantage in doing something important relating to a personality trait, obviously it has combat application.  Therefore the argument that this is in response to "4e is only combat" is false.  This is not a roleplaying tool, this is a narrative mechanic, the bone the Fate people et al get.

It's extremely minor for what it is, but that doesn't change what it is.  So why is it in Basic instead of an option?  The 3ers want the million ways to CharOp, so they will buy every hardbound and splat you got if you get them onboard.  The 4ers want balance and tactical miniatures challenge, so they'll buy the hardbounds and splats that will give them that.

Fate people aren't going to buy $60 hardbounds full of 3e and 4e stuff to get narrative mechanics, they'll keep playing Fate, or 13th Age, or whatever else gets their Dramatic Logic on.  So if you want to get the Dungeon World people on board, you gotta get 'em with Basic, hence the bone can't be thrown in the optional hardbounds, it has to come now.  

I knew 5e would have a "narrative rules module" the success of Numenera demands it, I'm just surprised the foundations of it came this early, and that actual mechanical reinforcement of personality mechanics came in Basic.  As I said, though, when you look at it, it does make sense, for them to try and set that hook now, but don't be naive about what they're doing.  They want to sell 5e to the "X does what D&D promised but never delivered crowd" too.

"Narrative" mechanic? Incidentally, and pretty thin gruel. Another abstract OOC sub-game? Definitely!

A lot of things are like that: they can serve another agenda, but fundamentally they're "pure game" elements.

Should be a piece of cake to ignore, though. They don't use this as a class feature or such, do they? It's equally applicable (or not) to all characters?

Does Numenera really have sales enough to demand anything?

If it really has been such a commercial hit, that's pretty nifty; but I wouldn't bet that one soul at my FLGS has heard of it.

Quote from: Phillip;766404Does Numenera really have sales enough to demand anything?

If it really has been such a commercial hit, that's pretty nifty; but I wouldn't bet that one soul at my FLGS has heard of it.

All the stuff is selling at my FLGS.

The guy who made your Third Edition walks out on your Fifth, starts his own company, gets other people who also leave your company to join him, they make almost a million from two kickstarters, and have owned half the top ten slots on DTRPG since they had enough product to fill that many, yeah I think Mearls probably looked a bit at Monty's audience. :)

Quote from: Phillip;766398"Narrative" mechanic?

I'm not choosing to spend an Inspiration point as my character, so who am I when I am making that decision?  What elements go into my choice?

Well, since the Inspiration comes from doing actions that relate to my personality traits, then I'm pulling back out of the character and deciding how my character gets to break the normal rules.  I get an exception.  When and how I choose that exception is supposedly reinforcing "roleplaying" but it's really reinforcing looking at the character as a character, using narrative, dramatic, literary logic, whatever adjective you want to use.  When I'm choosing to spend the Inspiration, quite literally, I'm declaring that this character has been inspired to do awesome things, no different then if I were writing it down in a story.  "Narrative" is just the term I use for all that stuff, but Dramatic Logic is probably better. :idunno:

Quote from: CRKrueger;766411All the stuff is selling at my FLGS.

The guy who made your Third Edition walks out on your Fifth, starts his own company, gets other people who also leave your company to join him, they make almost a million from two kickstarters, and have owned half the top ten slots on DTRPG since they had enough product to fill that many, yeah I think Mearls probably looked a bit at Monty's audience. :)

I was confused, thought Numenera was whatsit about the primal archetypes / patron immortals of this, that or anything. The name of the game is name the game ;)

But now I'm on the same page, and even though I remember seeing Ptolus and Arcana Unearthed on the shelves, I would still hesitate to place that bet. Mutants and Masterminds was clearly big elsewhere, but literally out of sight here, and I probably have the only copy of Savage Worlds in what I guess is somewhat of backwater.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766415I'm not choosing to spend an Inspiration point as my character, so who am I when I am making that decision?  What elements go into my choice?

Well, since the Inspiration comes from doing actions that relate to my personality traits, then I'm pulling back out of the character and deciding how my character gets to break the normal rules.  I get an exception.  When and how I choose that exception is supposedly reinforcing "roleplaying" but it's really reinforcing looking at the character as a character, using narrative, dramatic, literary logic, whatever adjective you want to use.  When I'm choosing to spend the Inspiration, quite literally, I'm declaring that this character has been inspired to do awesome things, no different then if I were writing it down in a story.  "Narrative" is just the term I use for all that stuff, but Dramatic Logic is probably better. :idunno:

It's really a distraction from dramatic logic as well as from role-playing, IMO. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that all it really necessarily appeals to is the abstract strategist, who doesn't need to give more of a shit about either of the above than when manipulating the rules of Chess.

The message it reinforces is that role-playing -- even by an extremely superficial definition -- is not worth doing except when it can get an advantage in the maths game that really matters.

Quote from: Phillip;766426It's really a distraction from dramatic logic as well as from role-playing, IMO. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that all it really necessarily appeals to is the abstract strategist, who doesn't need to give more of a shit about either of the above than when manipulating the rules of Chess.

The message it reinforces is that role-playing -- even by an extremely superficial definition -- is not[/u ] worth doing except when it can get an advantage in the maths game that really matters.

Yeah, as I said in the CharGen thread, it's not training you to roleplay, it's really training you to not roleplay.

Quote from: Marleycat;766221Since it can't be stockpiled I see no issue and since another player can gift hers away that takes the pressure off the introverts and playing up to the DM. And it'd be easy to cap if there was obvious grandstanding.

Same for me: the fact that you can only ever have 1 Inspiration at a time means that this might encourage players to become a bit more immersed in their characters. Not just to get a reward from the GM, but from other players too.

The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

EDIT: yes, it is meta-gamey, but making tactical decisions based on player knowledge of hit point statuses is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

Quote from: Necrozius;766434The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

I believe that if the adventures themselves are sufficiently dangerous, the party will collaborate in the interests of survival.

What better carrot could there be beyond living to see the next day. :)

Quote from: Necrozius;766434Same for me: the fact that you can only ever have 1 Inspiration at a time means that this might encourage players to become a bit more immersed in their characters. Not just to get a reward from the GM, but from other players too.

The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

EDIT: yes, it is meta-gamey, but making tactical decisions based on player knowledge of hit point statuses is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

Are you right now uninjured, have a torn something or other, a broken bone, or on your last legs?  You'd know that, right?  

Now knowing that on average, an Orc can hit you 3.3 more times before you die, or 1.7 times with a critical hit,  is obviously you going out of your way to do the math, you're choosing to pull yourself out of roleplaying the character to crunch the numbers, but the damage system itself, while VERY HIGHLY abstract is still representational of your ability to fight.

You're fucked up pretty good, if you guys don't get clear of this, you have a good chance of going down.  That's completely and totally knowledge your character can have.

Choosing when you say my Inspiration fires isn't something your character can do, period.

Quote from: Necrozius;766434Same for me: the fact that you can only ever have 1 Inspiration at a time means that this might encourage players to become a bit more immersed in their characters. Not just to get a reward from the GM, but from other players too.

The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

EDIT: yes, it is meta-gamey, but making tactical decisions based on player knowledge of hit point statuses is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

Yes it is 'meta-game-y', especially in D&D (in other systems, it may stand in more for bodily perceptions that are not present, as dice rolls substitute for missing feedback systems in conducting various activities).

 However, HP have been used without players being privy to them! Player manipulation of the abstraction is not necessary for it to work.

Can we revisit tye assumption that we don't give babies crutches because if we did they would never learn to walk?

First it's patently false.  We put them in saucer shaped 'walkers' where they develop the ability to zoom around the house and run over their dad's toes.  Also this in no way inyibits their ability to walk.

Also existing - bicycle training wheels.  Kids fishing poles.  Power Wheels.  Probably dozens of examples.

Finally there's these guys you may have heard of named Pavlov and Skinner who might disagree with your concept of babies never learning to walk through behavioral stimuli.  Caution,  science was used.  :)

As I recall from school, trained behaviors persist for only a limited time after the stimulus stops, unless the stimulus is not predictable.   Then you get to see pigeons develop religion,  which is awesome in its own right.

So, to sum up, the 'bennie light' Inspiration system won't destroy anyone's ability to learn to roleplay.  And it likely will train players to do the behaviors that grant Inspiration.   And if the Inspiration is stopped, the behavior will gradually fade, lacking other stimuli.

I think it is a cool idea, and better than my old house rule of "If the player is doing something that is mechanically a long shot because it fits the character and the other players want the player to succeed, the roll is skipped and they succeed" because the players can sort out how often someone is getting reward.

Quote from: Necrozius;766434Same for me: the fact that you can only ever have 1 Inspiration at a time means that this might encourage players to become a bit more immersed in their characters. Not just to get a reward from the GM, but from other players too.

The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

EDIT: yes, it is meta-gamey, but making tactical decisions based on player knowledge of hit point statuses is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

Yea, I'm not sure why these things are bad. For one, the DM is under no obligation to hand them out all the time, but it should have a significant impact when he/she does. And the more the players get into character, the more likely they have a chance for getting inspiration.

Sure, it's dissociative to Actor Stance of role-playing and most characters aren't going to have any idea of "inspiration to spend" so it's very gamist but if it gets the math people to role play their Barbarian warrior to fly into rage over silly things (things that might trigger from his flaws) then (s)he's role-playing and I don't care if it's because they want a mechanical advantage later for it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766427Yeah, as I said in the CharGen thread, it's not training you to roleplay, it's really training you to not roleplay.

This is well said, and important as far as I am concerned.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766439Are you right now uninjured, have a torn something or other, a broken bone, or on your last legs?  You'd know that, right?  

Sorry: to be specific I believe that PLAYER or OOC knowledge of hit points, not only just of one's own character, but of the HP of NPCs and monsters, is a bit meta-gamey. When I see players choose which monster to attack based on their knowledge of the monster manual vs. the damage output of their weapon... well that's metagaming to me!

Not as much as Fate Points and their ilk of course.

But this is a broad generalization. Different GMs and players handle this differently. Despite how I hide the current HP score of monsters (and try to DESCRIBE the wounds and their effects without numbers) some players that I've had have made in-game decisions based on their knowledge of the Monster Manual. It isn't a rampant issue at all: especially in games like D&D in which HP can be randomized, which is awesome.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766384Yeah but you're not actually trying it are you?  Are you playing the role of Cormac the Barbarian, when you narrate that as Cormac sees the Winged Ape, his Bond to Belinda makes him charge forward to avenge her or are you playing a combination of the role of reader and author as Howard himself was when he wrote Queen of the Black Coast?

When the GM tells you your rage for your lost love gives you Inspiration and you can choose to spend your Inspiration to get a mechanical advantage is Cormac hearing that or are you?  Does Cormac have any idea what the hell Advantage is, of course he doesn't.  If you are overcome with anger yourself playing Cormac, and charging the Winged Ape regardless of the consequences in a red rage because he killed your love, THEN you're roleplaying Cormac.
 
When you're sitting there deciding whether or not to spend the Inspiration effect you're NOT roleplaying Cormac by any definition of the term that fits.  (Cue Soviet in 3, 2, 1...)

All the mechanic does, as all such mechanics do, (which is why narrative games use them) is reinforce an OOC outlook, either with a nod to 4th wall genre emulation, seeing things with dramatic logic, to outright narrative control.

This is not Mearls trying to make "non-combat" rules.  Non-combat rules are things like gaming set proficiencies.  Since the whole point of Inspiration is to be gaining advantage in doing something important relating to a personality trait, obviously it has combat application.  Therefore the argument that this is in response to "4e is only combat" is false.  This is not a roleplaying tool, this is a narrative mechanic, the bone the Fate people et al get.

It's extremely minor for what it is, but that doesn't change what it is.  So why is it in Basic instead of an option?  The 3ers want the million ways to CharOp, so they will buy every hardbound and splat you got if you get them onboard.  The 4ers want balance and tactical miniatures challenge, so they'll buy the hardbounds and splats that will give them that.

Fate people aren't going to buy $60 hardbounds full of 3e and 4e stuff to get narrative mechanics, they'll keep playing Fate, or 13th Age, or whatever else gets their Dramatic Logic on.  So if you want to get the Dungeon World people on board, you gotta get 'em with Basic, hence the bone can't be thrown in the optional hardbounds, it has to come now.  

I knew 5e would have a "narrative rules module" the success of Numenera demands it, I'm just surprised the foundations of it came this early, and that actual mechanical reinforcement of personality mechanics came in Basic.  As I said, though, when you look at it, it does make sense, for them to try and set that hook now, but don't be naive about what they're doing.  They want to sell 5e to the "X does what D&D promised but never delivered crowd" too.

but that isn't how it will actually work is it.
This is how it will work.

DM: You come out of the cave your eyes adjusting to the bright sunshine. You see Belinda's body lying on the ground blood coming from a gaping wound in her head. Above her body stands a large winged ape a crude club covered in blood in its huge hand.
Player: Okay no doubt about it even though I am knackered, screaming my battle cry I charge it.
DM: Okay roll initiative. Oh as you played your bond to Belinda you can have an inspiration point.
Player: Whatever, no way you walk away from this monkey man, 14 +3 . "You will pay dark creature."
etc etc

So you aren't going to get players angling for an advantage or telling the DM "I am playing my trait now". You will get players playing and DMs awarding stuff when they remember and if it makes a a few people realise that they are in an RPG not a tactical minis game then fine.

Expending the Token is definitely gamist but no more so than a dozen other elements and as it exists at a meta level and doesn't try to mimic an in world effect I have no problem with it's dissociative nature.

The inspiration point is akin to a director in an improv theatre group giving one of his actors a nod as to a good bit of characterisation or dialogue.

Quote from: Bill;766450This is well said, and important as far as I am concerned.

If only it were true...

So that's a bit snarky, but behavioral science 'is settled' as they say, is it not?

Wherein lies the rebuttal, outside of worries?

Inspiration is totally not meta-gaming to me. I can in fact more or less map the rule right onto Thor #362, the famous "death of Skurge" episode (http://momcomics.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-mighty-thor-360-362-the-death-of-the-executioner/):

The hordes of Hel are chasing the withdrawing Asgardians. Someone has to hold the Gjallerbru against the angry dead. Skurge knocks out Thor and volunteers to do so in his place, making a great IC speech about how everyone has always laughed at him—except for Balder. Everyone at the table is amazed that this formerly neutral evil fighter is willing to sacrifice his character. Balder agrees with Skurge's plan and hands him one of the M-16s the Asgardians got on Midgard in a previous issue.

That panel where we see the rifle exchange hands between Balder and Skurge? That's Balder's player giving Skurge's player Balder's Inspiration point. As per the rules and utterly motivated by character.

OK, next page. "As the warriors of death ride hard down upon him ... the Executioner turns his thoughts from the flowing blond hair that always dances before his eyes ... and begins to do the thing he does best! BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA!" There's Skurge spending the Inspiration he got from Balder to mow down the onrushing undead horde.

Now, it's not a perfect mapping onto the rules, especially with regard to combat. But to me it demonstrates how, at least for my position on the immersion spectrum, Inspiration is an mechanic easy to explain in IC terms.

Quote from: mcbobbo;766445Can we revisit tye assumption that we don't give babies crutches because if we did they would never learn to walk?

Go read the other thread.
1. We don't give them crutches. You can read, right?
2. Training wheels don't teach you to ride a bike, they teach you to pedal, balance bikes teach you how to ride a bike.  Look it up, caution, science was used.

Tools have purposes.  Not all are training tools.

Quote from: mcbobbo;766445So, to sum up

To sum up, you're incapable of seeing the difference between Conan and Robert E. Howard, or the difference between DiCaprio and Scorcese, gotcha.

Quote from: mcbobbo;766445If only it were true...

Riiiight, because making decisions completely divorced from anything a character could possibly be involved with is roleplaying the character, yeah, I forgot. :rolleyes:

Yeah snarky, but hey, you chose it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;766468DM: You come out of the cave your eyes adjusting to the bright sunshine. You see Belinda's body lying on the ground blood coming from a gaping wound in her head. Above her body stands a large winged ape a crude club covered in blood in its huge hand.
Player: Okay no doubt about it even though I am knackered, screaming my battle cry I charge it.
DM: Okay roll initiative. Oh as you played your bond to Belinda you can have an inspiration point.
Player: Whatever, no way you walk away from this monkey man, 14 +3 . "You will pay dark creature."

So your point in defense of the mechanic as a tool to teach roleplaying is that players will roleplay by themselves and not need it to reinforce the behavior...hmm, I could have sworn that was my position that RPing is it;s own reward.  Your very example shows the DM distracting the player from RPing his vengeance by talking about his Inspiration mechanic and the player not giving a shit.  

If that's the best support you can muster for the mechanic, your heart ain't in it man.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766376and that's why they don't give babies crutches, cause otherwise, they don't learn to walk. ;)

I guess it comes down to what you believe a crutch is but that's a good point nonetheless.

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;766471Inspiration is totally not meta-gaming to me. I can in fact more or less map the rule right onto Thor #362, the famous "death of Skurge" episode (http://momcomics.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-mighty-thor-360-362-the-death-of-the-executioner/):

The hordes of Hel are chasing the withdrawing Asgardians. Someone has to hold the Gjallerbru against the angry dead. Skurge knocks out Thor and volunteers to do so in his place, making a great IC speech about how everyone has always laughed at him—except for Balder. Everyone at the table is amazed that this formerly neutral evil fighter is willing to sacrifice his character. Balder agrees with Skurge's plan and hands him one of the M-16s the Asgardians got on Midgard in a previous issue.

That panel where we see the rifle exchange hands between Balder and Skurge? That's Balder's player giving Skurge's player Balder's Inspiration point. As per the rules and utterly motivated by character.

OK, next page. "As the warriors of death ride hard down upon him ... the Executioner turns his thoughts from the flowing blond hair that always dances before his eyes ... and begins to do the thing he does best! BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA!" There's Skurge spending the Inspiration he got from Balder to mow down the onrushing undead horde.

Now, it's not a perfect mapping onto the rules, especially with regard to combat. But to me it demonstrates how, at least for my position on the immersion spectrum, Inspiration is an mechanic easy to explain in IC terms.

You do realize that taking a nebulous, indefined quanta like "Inspiration" and choosing to map it onto an M-16 and hand it to someone is a decision that you are doing, not Balder.

That's the narrative rationalization Catch-22.  The second you begin to rationalize how an action could be considered in character, you have just stepped out of character.  The very act of the rationalization means you are comparing two different things.  You are clearly in an authorial stance playing out the Bridge scene.

Either the Inspiration exists totally OOC, and just amounts to a mechanical advantage, or it exists totally OOC, until you attempt to rationalize it by mapping to an IC action.  The effect is the same, the choice to use it and what it represents is OOC, because the character can't choose to gain it or lose it, only YOU can.

Quote from: Necrozius;766434Same for me: the fact that you can only ever have 1 Inspiration at a time means that this might encourage players to become a bit more immersed in their characters. Not just to get a reward from the GM, but from other players too.

The fact that players can reward each other could contribute to inter-party collaboration. I know some people don't give a shit about that, but oh well. I like it.

EDIT: yes, it is meta-gamey, but making tactical decisions based on player knowledge of hit point statuses is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

Like that never happens.:rolleyes:

The whole 'crutch' critique is patronizing and dickish.

My only thought about the inspiration mechanic is that it puts too many constant judgement calls on the DM and would have been better done like Pendragon, where you have scores for traits and both players and DM's can treat them more objectively. Or like Prince Valiant, where you just get to call on them for something like inspiration whenever it seems clear they are appropriate.

I intend to run inspirations in D&D like Prince Valiant - i.e., if it seems obvious to both player and DM that your personality trait, bond, whatever is relevant, then you get to claim an inspiration point.  I am not into the idea of making players 'prove' they deserve it by talking in a squeaky voice or whatever, which seems like another kind of patronizing and dickish.

This is a very interesting discussion. I had never considered some of the criticisms against meta-gamey rules. My players and I have always responded well to this sort of thing, having always seen it as the "GAME" part of roleplaying games.

I can see why it could be disruptive to some now. Luckily 5e doesn't break if you omit it (say, unlike Fate Points in Fate, which is intrinsic to the system, I think).

Quote from: CRKrueger;766490That's the narrative rationalization Catch-22.  The second you begin to rationalize how an action could be considered in character, you have just stepped out of character.  The very act of the rationalization means you are comparing two different things.  You are clearly in an authorial stance playing out the Bridge scene.

No, I'm analyzing an example of "actual play" after the fact. I can easily imagine how this would work at the table in real time; I've done it on numerous occasions in the 34 years I've been gaming. My sense of IC is not fragile: if it can survive bog-standard hit points (what, I can fight like a demon up until the moment I run out of this meta-game approximation of my ... well, whatever the hell it is that hit points represent), spell slots, and all the quantification of non-quantifiable qualities that is the usual character sheet, it can handle Inspiration.

I'll respect your phenomenological boundaries. But don't tell me what mine are.

What have spell slots to do with it?

Quote from: Phillip;766513What have spell slots to do with it?

I don't remember things in distinct slots in my brain. Nor do I suddenly decide that *this* memory will take up a larger space than normal because I want to fire off an upgraded reminiscence.

Vancian magic has clearly been as controversial as it has been for all these years in part because it runs counter to how many players experience memorization. It's a game mechanic, the manipulation of which doesn't map perfectly onto an IC experience. For a great many players historically, then, it's a "dissociated" mechanic. Hence the explosion of spell point and mana systems that followed over the years (to give one example.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;766473Go read the other thread.

You are comparing my ignorance of an adjacent thread to your ignorance of behavioral science?   How is this persuasive?

Quote from: CRKrueger;766473You can read, right?

Words, yes.   Minds, not quite yet.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766473Training wheels don't teach you to ride a bike, they teach you to pedal, balance bikes teach you how to ride a bike.

Then Inspiration is like peddling.   It ain't the whole bike.  So problem dissappears?

Quote from: CRKrueger;766473To sum up, you're incapable of seeing the difference between Conan and Robert E. Howard, or the difference between DiCaprio and Scorcese, gotcha.

I would argue the basics of behavioral science with Robert E. Howard, DiCaprio and Scorcese.  Don't change the subject.  I am discussing stimulus and response and the impact on behavior.  You're building an edifice that even if perfectly true wouldn't impact behavior.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766473Riiiight, because making decisions completely divorced from anything a character could possibly be involved with is roleplaying the character, yeah, I forgot. :rolleyes:

Is showing up at the table part of playing the game? If so, did you ride a fucking horse to the GMs house?

Metagame MUST exist.  Must.

QuoteYeah snarky, but hey, you chose it.

If I was impolite enough to trigger such an immature response then I genuinely apologize.  But it's hard for me to gently say "you don't seem to know what the fuck you are talking about".

Did you even bother to hit up Wikipedia?

Let me be more succinct:

Did the bell train Pavlov's dog not to salivate when offered food?

What did he wind up having to do to get the dog to stop?  And was he able to achieve complete extinction?

Quote from: CRKrueger;766475So your point in defense of the mechanic as a tool to teach roleplaying is that players will roleplay by themselves and not need it to reinforce the behavior...hmm, I could have sworn that was my position that RPing is it;s own reward.

Ever hear the phrase "fake it until you make it?"  Yeah, I'm comparing roleplaying-challenged people with alcoholics, deal with it.

But really, if you're playing your character, you should naturally get Inspiration without thinking about it.  If you're just doing it to get Inspiration, there's little way for others to know (unless they're mind readers) and at least now the min-maxers are acting somewhat in character.  Hopefully they'll get the idea that it's cool to do that and switch from the extrinsic to the intrinsic reward for roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766490Either the Inspiration exists totally OOC, and just amounts to a mechanical advantage, or it exists totally OOC, until you attempt to rationalize it by mapping to an IC action.  The effect is the same, the choice to use it and what it represents is OOC, because the character can't choose to gain it or lose it, only YOU can.

Exactly.  It exists outside the model of the world - it is a totally OOC and dissociated concept.  This is not arguable in any reasonable way.

What *is* arguable is how damaging it is to overall immersion.  There are many things in RPGs that involve player-level, not character-level decisions or knowledge.  Most of them we've just gotten so used to that they don't phase us any more.

And how much they harm immersion is going to be an individual thing.  It's not objective.

Personally, placing the *exact center* of where I want my fireball to go in 3.x to maximize damage while minimizing damage to allies is at least as immersion-breaking as the Inspiration mechanic.  Your mileage may, and probably does, vary.

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;766508My sense of IC is not fragile: if it can survive bog-standard hit points (what, I can fight like a demon up until the moment I run out of this meta-game approximation of my ... well, whatever the hell it is that hit points represent), spell slots, and all the quantification of non-quantifiable qualities that is the usual character sheet, it can handle Inspiration.

Exactly.  Except spell slots.

Quote from: Phillip;766513What have spell slots to do with it?

Nothing.  They have everything to do with not knowing the fiction/magic model that they came from.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766475So your point in defense of the mechanic as a tool to teach roleplaying is that players will roleplay by themselves and not need it to reinforce the behavior...hmm, I could have sworn that was my position that RPing is it;s own reward.  Your very example shows the DM distracting the player from RPing his vengeance by talking about his Inspiration mechanic and the player not giving a shit.  

If that's the best support you can muster for the mechanic, your heart ain't in it man.

No that was how it will actually play and you and I both know that that is how it will go with any DM that engenders roleplay.
If you think oh here is an inspiration point is less OOC than can you roll initiative or roll to hit or any other game parts of the game then meh... can;t help you.

This is how the idea may engender and encourage roleplaying.

DM: You come out of the cave your eyes adjusting to the bright sunshine. You see Belinda's body lying on the ground blood coming from a gaping wound in her head. Above her body stands a large winged ape a crude club covered in blood in its huge hand.
Player: Right so how tough is a Flying monkey whatsit again? Sounded tough and Cormac is down to 8 HPs.
DM: You haven't fought one of these before so you don't know how tough they might be but as you look at it standing nearly 7 feet tall its mouth filled with sharp fangs  it sure doesn't looks like a walkover.
Player: I have this Bond thing here on my character sheet about Belinda what does that mean.
DM: remember when we created PCs and we discussed bonds, traits flaws. These are things that have a big impact on your character the stuff they care about. So to you Belinda is like say your girlfriend (I am stretching reality to assume that a teenage roleplayer may have a girlfriend but they probably understand the concept of girlfriends so bear with me).
Player: Right so if this critter had smashed her head it then Cormac, I, would get pretty pissed right.
DM: Yeah, yeah probably.
Player: Well in that case. I charge the beast all guns blazing. "No one harms Cormac's mate" I shout as I charge forward.
DM: Okay roll initiative, oh and as you acted out a Bond you get an inspiration token. You can only have one at any one time but you spend it to get advantage on a roll.
Player: Cool so I will use it to get advantage on this initiative roll cos I am all fired up with wrath at this thing.
etc ....

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;766516I  It's a game mechanic, the manipulation of which doesn't map perfectly onto an IC experience. For a great many players historically, then, it's a "dissociated" mechanic. Hence the explosion of spell point and mana systems that followed over the years (to give one example.)

No, it does map to the character's experience. Likewise any other system that is how magic works in a given game world.

Nothing else is described as being abstracted -- and abstracted is not what dissociated means, anyhow.

Quote from: Phillip;766548No, it does map to the character's experience. Likewise any other system that is how magic works in a given game world.

Nothing else is described as being abstracted -- and abstracted is not what dissociated means, anyhow.

I agree spell slots are not dissociated but they are badly explained in the rule book.

The magic system needs to be explained as a system.
You learn the words of a spell which form a construct in your memory that traps the magical energy when the energy is released the spell is cast and the words are lost and need to be remembered again. Simple spells have simple constructs which are quite quick to memorise, complex spells take far longer to learn and are only available to high level wizards of great power.

As a system this is just as internally logical as any other. Of course D&D adds on a need to rest overnight to relearn spells which is a gamist tweak added for balance reasons :)

The Inspiration-as-learning-to-roleplay... not sure I'd take it that far.

When I discovered FATE - I was dubious about Aspects. But conceptually it was what a couple of my introvert-players kinda needed. My good players who had attitudes like CRKrueger, were "I don't like these rules. They do nothing for my roleplaying." didn't use them - I get that. But for my other players they helped, a bit (not completely).

That said - I'd rather look at Inspiration as just another system mechanic, not as a training-wheels for roleplaying. But simply as a mechanic to reward you for doing what you want your character to do and should be doing regardless. Sure you can ask why do you need it? But then I could ask - why do you need most such mechanics that currently exist that require you as a player to activate a power, ring, discipline blah blah blah

Much like when I'm playing Oriental Adventures and I choose to do activate my Ki power as a Yakuza in order to withstand a barrage of attacks, or as a Kensai to max my damage. It's *just* a mechanic. Does it in any way take away from my personal experience in the roleplay I engage in...

When my kensai twirls his blade to clean the blood from it in a flourish, and raise it to the roaring crowds after killing the last dumbass that they thought could best me... if you wanna give me an Inspiration point for that, then nope it takes nothing away. I'm still roleplaying and I don't feel disconnected at all.

To the degree that someone wants to tell me I'm not "feeling" the RP as deeply as I could/should be due to this particular mechanic is kinda arbitrary isn't it?

Quote from: jibbajibba;766541No that was how it will actually play and you and I both know that that is how it will go with any DM that engenders roleplay.
If you think oh here is an inspiration point is less OOC than can you roll initiative or roll to hit or any other game parts of the game then meh... can;t help you.

This is how the idea may engender and encourage roleplaying.

DM: You come out of the cave your eyes adjusting to the bright sunshine. You see Belinda's body lying on the ground blood coming from a gaping wound in her head. Above her body stands a large winged ape a crude club covered in blood in its huge hand.
Player: Right so how tough is a Flying monkey whatsit again? Sounded tough and Cormac is down to 8 HPs.
DM: You haven't fought one of these before so you don't know how tough they might be but as you look at it standing nearly 7 feet tall its mouth filled with sharp fangs  it sure doesn't looks like a walkover.
Player: I have this Bond thing here on my character sheet about Belinda what does that mean.
DM: remember when we created PCs and we discussed bonds, traits flaws. These are things that have a big impact on your character the stuff they care about. So to you Belinda is like say your girlfriend (I am stretching reality to assume that a teenage roleplayer may have a girlfriend but they probably understand the concept of girlfriends so bear with me).
Player: Right so if this critter had smashed her head it then Cormac, I, would get pretty pissed right.
DM: Yeah, yeah probably.
Player: Well in that case. I charge the beast all guns blazing. "No one harms Cormac's mate" I shout as I charge forward.
DM: Okay roll initiative, oh and as you acted out a Bond you get an inspiration token. You can only have one at any one time but you spend it to get advantage on a roll.
Player: Cool so I will use it to get advantage on this initiative roll cos I am all fired up with wrath at this thing.
etc ....

Sorry; I want less ooc mechanics, not more.

So while I agree that initiative rolls are ooc, just like an inspiration point is ooc, I consider initiative a necessary evil whereas inspiration mechanics completely unnecessary.

I could add hundreds of ooc meta mechanics to an rpg; but I don't want to. I want as few as possible.

Quote from: Bill;766562Sorry; I want less ooc mechanics, not more.

So while I agree that initiative rolls are ooc, just like an inspiration point is ooc, I consider initiative a necessary evil whereas inspiration mechanics completely unnecessary.

I could add hundreds of ooc meta mechanics to an rpg; but I don't want to. I want as few as possible.

I suspect D&D isn't for you:)

Maybe try Amber. No dice, no initiative few mechanics etc etc :)

The point I was trying to make is if a rule can take someone who's usual attention to roleplay is non-existent and make them act in a consistent manner that you can approximate to roleplay its a good start.

As I said right back on the other thread the inspiration discussion is separate to traits, flaws and bonds as you can still have them without inspiration at all just as roleplay guides.

Quote from: jibbajibba;766569I suspect D&D isn't for you:)

Maybe try Amber. No dice, no initiative few mechanics etc etc :)

The point I was trying to make is if a rule can take someone who's usual attention to roleplay is non-existent and make them act in a consistent manner that you can approximate to roleplay its a good start.

As I said right back on the other thread the inspiration discussion is separate to traits, flaws and bonds as you can still have them without inspiration at all just as roleplay guides.

Dnd has worked just fine for me for 35 years of heavy gaming.

I just don't see a reason to add mechanics for roleplay.

The best guide for roleplay is playing an rpg with roleplayers.

Quote from: robiswrong;766533Exactly.  It exists outside the model of the world - it is a totally OOC and dissociated concept.  This is not arguable in any reasonable way.

You'd think.

Quote from:  robiswrong;766533What *is* arguable is how damaging it is to overall immersion.
Personally, placing the *exact center* of where I want my fireball to go in 3.x to maximize damage while minimizing damage to allies is at least as immersion-breaking as the Inspiration mechanic.  Your mileage may, and probably does, vary.

It probably won't surprise you if I tell you that when we played, we never knew exactly the dimensions of the area we were in, and dropping the fireball exactly where you wanted it was an Int check. :)

As for immersion breaking, we know from doing this dance before, you and I have different threshold levels of "tolerable" OOC.  That's fine.  The difference between you and other people is, you at least can see it is OOC, and I think you might agree that as such it's not a Roleplaying tool, but more of a nod to Fate-like game players.

I think the crux of the matter with inspiration will only be as good as the GM using it. But oddly, I can also see it as a learning tool to teach good GM'ing.

Quote from: Bill;766572Dnd has worked just fine for me for 35 years of heavy gaming.

Then 5e should too, because I can't see how removing this rule would break the game. Unless I missed something?

Quote from: Bill;766572Dnd has worked just fine for me for 35 years of heavy gaming.  The best guide for roleplay is playing an rpg with roleplayers.

Yeppers.

Quote from: Necrozius;766577Then 5e should too, because I can't see how removing this rule would break the game. Unless I missed something?

Agreed.

In my case, I happen to think it is a completely useless rule, so I will ignore it.

If others like the rule, and enjoy it, good for them.

I can simply hope no one I play 5e with uses it. But its not a dealbreaker either way.

Quote from: dragoner;766576I think the crux of the matter with inspiration will only be as good as the GM using it. But oddly, I can also see it as a learning tool to teach good GM'ing.

Or teaches bad gming. :)

Quote from: Bill;766581Or teaches bad gming. :)

Anything good can be used for bad. I'm sure some philosopher has said that (I'm an engineer).

Works pretty well for my group, at least after one session. We treat it like willpower or focus. Do something that is tied to your personality or desires and you dig a little deeper, try a little harder. No more out of character than level or AC or any other abstract measure in the game.

Let's try this, McBobbo.  At this point I'm not really sure what you're arguing, it appears to be my use of metaphor? So I'll just be clear.

Do you think Inspiration can train someone to roleplay?
I do not.

Do you think the purpose of Inspiration is to serve as a Roleplaying training tool?  I think the purpose of Inspiration is to give the Fate/DW crowd something.

Quote from: Bill;766572The best guide for roleplay is playing an rpg with roleplayers.

I agree with this, but in the current gaming climate I am not sure the % chance of a new player finding a roleplayer to play with are that high.

So long as people are attempting to role-play I don't care what their motivation is. If Sir Petyr the Bold is defending the children in a house from a demon, I don't care if it's because the player thinks that's what Sir Petyr would do OR if he's doing it because Sir Petyr might receive inspiration from the DM to have a mechanically beneficial effect occur if the DM is using those rules. All I know is that Sir Petyr is doing is part as a Knight and his chivalry is clearly apparent.

Now the more often the Player does this and receives nothing for his "troubles" we'll see a sort of decline for acting in character, but I think that's far more a DM problem than a player one, especially if the DM announces that they're using the Inspiration mechanic for their games.

I'm surprised how bent out of shape some of you are about game elements that pull you out of character. Apparently this is such an important thing that it gets its own acronym! What the fuck? Aren't you out of character when you eat bugles or roll dice or go to the bathroom or whatever? And who wants to be immersed in their character for 5 continuous hours, anyway - it is sort of creepy. I'm perfectly able to enjoy playing my character and having him or her act, in game, in some appropriate way even though I know I'm playing a game and there are rules that come into play.

Quote from: Necrozius;766577Then 5e should too, because I can't see how removing this rule would break the game. Unless I missed something?

Nope. You are right.

Quote from: Larsdangly;766631I'm surprised how bent out of shape some of you are about game elements that pull you out of character. Apparently this is such an important thing that it gets its own acronym! What the fuck? Aren't you out of character when you eat bugles or roll dice or go to the bathroom or whatever? And who wants to be immersed in their character for 5 continuous hours, anyway - it is sort of creepy. I'm perfectly able to enjoy playing my character and having him or her act, in game, in some appropriate way even though I know I'm playing a game and there are rules that come into play.

I never really understood it either. The whole "Dissociative Mechanic" thing has really been beaten to death by now. Additionally, many D&D's mechanics could be considered by some to be Dissociative: such as Level and Hit Points or Spell Slots (It works in Jack Vance's stories but I fail to see that same level of acceptance in any D&D novel to date). Yet those are apparently OK (because they're necessary?) but things like Inspiration points or (heaven forbid) Fighter Daily powers *ensue collective gasp* are right out.

I think the best thing, however, is that it's easily ignored by people who don't like the gimmick but works well for those who might want to use it. I know I certainly will, especially because I have a player who LOVES using 3E's flaws (RPG Nexus ones, not the "official" ones) and the Daredevil one in particular. Anytime he can pull off some radical stunt just for show deserves some sort of reward, even if he'll do it anyways.

Quote from: Larsdangly;766631I'm surprised how bent out of shape some of you are about game elements that pull you out of character. Apparently this is such an important thing that it gets its own acronym! What the fuck? Aren't you out of character when you eat bugles or roll dice or go to the bathroom or whatever? And who wants to be immersed in their character for 5 continuous hours, anyway - it is sort of creepy. I'm perfectly able to enjoy playing my character and having him or her act, in game, in some appropriate way even though I know I'm playing a game and there are rules that come into play.

Any RPG session includes tons of non-roleplay.  When I am actually "playing the game", though, I prefer it to be while Roleplaying.  That's why I play Roleplaying games, after all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;766436I believe that if the adventures themselves are sufficiently dangerous, the party will collaborate in the interests of survival.

What better carrot could there be beyond living to see the next day. :)

Part of me wants to say... "You REALLY havent gamed with many groups have you?"

Inspiration is just a flowery way of going about the various methods to coax players out of their shells and actually enguage in the role-play. That goes way way back to Dragon articles discussing techniques to coax. EXP reward is the easiest.

Inspiration has the potential to be really viable for that since it not only rewards the player a little edge. It gives incentive to the players to reward eachother with the equivalent of a pep-talk.

Its like everyone is a level 0 bard.

Personally I prefer rewards in game like gifting a fellow member some item or first pick of loot, etc.

But I can live with pep talks.

"Og beat gnome with rock."
"Really? I'll keep that in mind..."

Later attacked by goblins...
"Damn these little jerks are annoying! What did Og say about rocks? Oh yeah!"

Quote from: CRKrueger;766597Let's try this, McBobbo.  At this point I'm not really sure what you're arguing, it appears to be my use of metaphor? So I'll just be clear.

Do you think Inspiration can train someone to roleplay?
I do not.

Do you think the purpose of Inspiration is to serve as a Roleplaying training tool?  I think the purpose of Inspiration is to give the Fate/DW crowd something.

I believe that Inspiration is a positive behavioral motivator (carrot).

If you give the carrot to reinforce the behavior you want to see it will encourage that behavior to occur again.

Absent any other input this is all that will happen.

So yes, it can train people to roleplay.  When you observe good roleplaying behavior you reward it.

I can't comment on the purpose.  I just don't know.

At the very least it may incentivise people to at least try role playing.

Quote from: mcbobbo;766656I believe that Inspiration is a positive behavioral motivator (carrot).

If you give the carrot to reinforce the behavior you want to see it will encourage that behavior to occur again.

Absent any other input this is all that will happen.

So yes, it can train people to roleplay.  When you observe good roleplaying behavior you reward it.

I can't comment on the purpose.  I just don't know.

I react negatively as a player to gm rewards like bennies, inspiration points, etc...when doled out for 'good roleplay'

So for me anyway, it is definitely not a positive thing.

I roleplay just fine without carrots.

I think the "no stockpiling" thing is a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, this creates a good motivation for the players to use their inspiration points frequently instead of saving them infinetly. On the other hand, this effectively punishes the players who should gather more points due to more pro-active play. A better way would be to reset the inspiration points at the end of each session and to translate unspent points into XP.

Ooooo new term: "incentivists"

Quote from: Beagle;766669A better way would be to reset the inspiration points at the end of each session and to translate unspent points into XP.

The problem with that is you would never use them for re-rolls.

If you want to reward players with exp for role-play, its probably simpler for the GM to just do that.

Quote from: Beagle;766669I think the "no stockpiling" thing is a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, this creates a good motivation for the players to use their inspiration points frequently instead of saving them infinetly. On the other hand, this effectively punishes the players who should gather more points due to more pro-active play. A better way would be to reset the inspiration points at the end of each session and to translate unspent points into XP.

If the players who rack up Inspiration keep handing them out, they can always get more.

Quote from: tenbones;766680Ooooo new term: "incentivists"

Well if there is one thing RPGs need, it's more fucking jargon. ;o)

Quote from: CRKrueger;766686If the players who rack up Inspiration keep handing them out, they can always get more.

Yep. And then others may join in. Almost like a way of showing this is how this table prefers to play and these are what we consider good roleplay.

Quote from: Bill;766663I react negatively as a player to gm rewards like bennies, inspiration points, etc...when doled out for 'good roleplay'

So for me anyway, it is definitely not a positive thing.

I roleplay just fine without carrots.

Your negative emotions are a different stimulus (or rather a learned response from your past) that could be held separate from the Inspiration.

Aside from what your preferences mandate,  Inspiration should not make you roleplay less.  Not by itself.

Quote from: Beagle;766669I think the "no stockpiling" thing is a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, this creates a good motivation for the players to use their inspiration points frequently instead of saving them infinetly. On the other hand, this effectively punishes the players who should gather more points due to more pro-active play. A better way would be to reset the inspiration points at the end of each session and to translate unspent points into XP.

Don't forget though that XP is pretty tightly curved, especially at the lower levels.

Quote from: tenbones;766680Ooooo new term: "incentivists"

Remember that scene from tye Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo his choice of pill.  I'll do that here, but wrap it in a spoiler tag.  Don't open it unless you accept the possibility that you can't unlearn that...

Spoiler

A huge portion of game theory, particularly in the modern world, is a mind job.

Critical hits, or 'always hits on a 20' are designed to make the game more addictive by doling out little doses of dopamine that are beyond anyone's control.

System mastery is a mind job too.

And don't get me STARTED on MMOs.

Incentives are pretty mild.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766597I think the purpose of Inspiration is to give the Fate/DW crowd something.

There are a lot of similarities to Fate but you're way off on Dungeon World.  It has nothing like this mechanic at all.  The mechanics in DW directly go to the action.  Its very immersive that way.

Quote from: Marleycat;766695Yep. And then others may join in. Almost like a way of showing this is how this table prefers to play and these are what we consider good roleplay.

Funny how for 37 years of gaming, I managed to do that by...roleplaying. :D

Quote from: Beagle;766669A better way would be to reset the inspiration points at the end of each session and to translate unspent points into XP.

   Numerous systems have tried this in some form or another. It usually winds up encouraging hoarding, since the rewards of XP are usually so much more long-lasting than the rewards of spending Character Points/bennies/inspiration/etc.

  As for Inspiration itself, it feels to me like a streamlined version of Pendragon's Traits and Passions, and I don't know if I've ever heard anyone complain that those interfere with roleplaying. But I don't share the "Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise Actor stance/immersion" approach of some here. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;766732Never compromise Actor stance/immersion" approach of some here. :)

The non-strawman version goes "You don't teach roleplaying by not roleplaying."  That's the actual argument. ;)

Back to sackcloth for you.

Quote from: Bill;766572Dnd has worked just fine for me for 35 years of heavy gaming.

I just don't see a reason to add mechanics for roleplay.

Cool.  And over that 35 years, we've internalized a lot of things that, if you look at them with fresh eyes, don't make sense.

If Inspiration had been in B/X I don't think anybody today would have an issue with it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766574It probably won't surprise you if I tell you that when we played, we never knew exactly the dimensions of the area we were in, and dropping the fireball exactly where you wanted it was an Int check. :)

Not at all.  It was an example.

How about "I know if I run between here and there, that there's no way the guy with a crossbow can kill me".

Quote from: CRKrueger;766574I think you might agree that as such it's not a Roleplaying tool, but more of a nod to Fate-like game players.

I think you are using "roleplaying tool" more strictly than I would.

If Bob is in love with Jane (and has a bond saying so), then it's totally in character for Bob to go to the rescue of Jane.  That's roleplaying.  The GM tossing him an inspiration token for doing so doesn't change that.

Now, if Bob's player is just looking over his sheet for ways to get Inspiration, and happens upon that one, is it roleplaying?  Maybe, maybe not - but I'd argue it's at least closer to "roleplaying" than what we'd see from this hypothetical player *without* it.

Quote from: Saint&Sinner;766722There are a lot of similarities to Fate but you're way off on Dungeon World.  It has nothing like this mechanic at all.  The mechanics in DW directly go to the action.  Its very immersive that way.

Hell, DW doesn't even have *initiative*.

Quote from: robiswrong;766755Cool.  And over that 35 years, we've internalized a lot of things that, if you look at them with fresh eyes, don't make sense.

If Inspiration had been in B/X I don't think anybody today would have an issue with it.



Not at all.  It was an example.

How about "I know if I run between here and there, that there's no way the guy with a crossbow can kill me".



I think you are using "roleplaying tool" more strictly than I would.

If Bob is in love with Jane (and has a bond saying so), then it's totally in character for Bob to go to the rescue of Jane.  That's roleplaying.  The GM tossing him an inspiration token for doing so doesn't change that.

Now, if Bob's player is just looking over his sheet for ways to get Inspiration, and happens upon that one, is it roleplaying?  Maybe, maybe not - but I'd argue it's at least closer to "roleplaying" than what we'd see from this hypothetical player *without* it.



Hell, DW doesn't even have *initiative*.

I have tossed out rules that don't make sense to me, and or, do not improve my game experience for about 33 of those 35 years.  
The fact I disagree with the concept and effect of doling out good roleplay awards has nothing to do with 'Fresh Eyes'

I could as easily say 'blind acceptance of whatever is in the rulebook' as a counter to 'Fresh Eyes'

But I don't like that argument any more than the fresh eyes argument.

Its really about what works for each player.

Quote from: Bill;766764Its really about what works for each player.

That's the ultimate test, right?

But I do think that a component of "what works" is "what we're used to".  That doesn't mean that any given mechanic might not have been tossed out along the way.

Quote from: robiswrong;766775That's the ultimate test, right?

But I do think that a component of "what works" is "what we're used to".  That doesn't mean that any given mechanic might not have been tossed out along the way.

There's also a gap between 'not right for me' and 'bad for everyone'.

Quote from: CRKrueger;766741The non-strawman version goes "You don't teach roleplaying by not roleplaying."  That's the actual argument. ;)

Sure is silly, but so is the pomposity in the first place of the righteous pushers of what doesn't need to be pushed. There's plenty to mock (in a Snark Line*hoggin' and MCBLT-friendly way, of course).

Wait, am I a sandwich now?

Do a little dance
Make a little lunch
Get down tonight

Ain't hatin' on the playas
With the Forgy plan
Everybody got to get down
With a boogie man

Boogie man, boogie man
Turn us on

Do a little dance
Make a little lunch
Get down tonight
Get down tonight

Ain't hatin' on the playas
With the Forgy plan
Everybody got to get down
With a boogie man

Boogie man, boogie man
Turn us on

Quote from: mcbobbo;766778There's also a gap between 'not right for me' and 'bad for everyone'.

And a gap between "I like vanilla, you like chocolate." Which is subjective and "Vanilla=/=Chocolate", which is not.

Then there's the argument everyone makes in their heads concerning non-argued value judgements.

Quote from: mcbobbo;766778There's also a gap between 'not right for me' and 'bad for everyone'.

Indeed.

As well as between "good for me" and "good for everyone".

I think the better way of stating it is possibly thus.

Inspiration in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Its application and impact could be either or neither. It can be visualized in various ways in game or out.

What it is though is one more mechanic to track when one allready existed. Mainly EXP for good RPing which has been with the game since the start in one form or another.

And that is where it bugs me minorly. Its an extra mechanic on top of an existing one. Or as in MMO parlance, its an extra in game currency.

Why not have simply given players the ability to gift EXP their own with others if they liked something they did? Or just said tip your friend an item or first loot choice next time?
Simple and functions with existing mechanics rather than creating a new one

Inspiration is neet and easy. But so are the other methods.

Do XP rewards for good roleplaying really make a difference within the D&D context, though? In most forms I've seen, they've been so small that beyond the first couple of levels, they really make very little difference to a character's rate of advancement. And with the loss of XP for gold and the unified progression table of later editions, XP gains and advancement are so uniform that you'd really need to hand out huge chunks to make a difference. In other systems (like the d6 Star Wars game I'm playing in right now), it works, but there XP/CP gain is far smaller and more discrete, so that 1 or 2 extra points makes a difference but doesn't dramatically shift character abilities. In D&D, it feels like a carrot that doesn't really mean much of anything.

  And different reward systems for roleplaying apparently have precedent going back to Blackmoor, according to Arneson's notes in Heroic Worlds. :)

Quote from: robiswrong;766844Indeed.

As well as between "good for me" and "good for everyone".

Quote from: Omega;766898Inspiration in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Its application and impact could be either or neither.

Yes, this is underscored by the behavioralist arguments I was making earlier.  If you 'carrot' things you don't want, you'll see more behavior you don't want.  That's pretty clear.  If you 'carrot' things you DO want, there's pretty much no drawback (outside of conflicting with your personal tastes).

The maximum negative impact should be nil, and as the experiments show, if you really thought it was generating bad roleplaying you could stop doing it and behaviors will revert on their own.

So it might not be 'good', but 'bad' is too harsh a term for a 'carrot', from everything I know about reinforcement.

Quote from: Omega;766898Why not have simply given players the ability to gift EXP their own with others if they liked something they did?

Like I said before, I don't think there's enough XP in the levels to accommodate that.  There's nothing in Basic or the Starter about granting XP for good roleplaying, and I suspect that's by design.

But it's just a suspicion.  We'll know more in November when the DMG comes out, or when they update Basic.

Quote from: Bill;766572Dnd has worked just fine for me for 35 years of heavy gaming.

I just don't see a reason to add mechanics for roleplay.

The best guide for roleplay is playing an rpg with roleplayers.

Great idea they should pack each starter set with 3 experienced immersive roleplayers ;)

I guess part of this comes down to bennies/hero points etc and how comfortable you are with them.
I have been using them as part of James Bond since about 83 or so so entirely comfortable and have zero issue with them as a mechanic and have never felt they impacted roleplay negatively at all.

Quote from: Omega;766898Mainly EXP for good RPing which has been with the game since the start in one form or another.

I hate XP for RPing for two reasons:
It has no immediate impact because it gets lost in the total XP per level
For games where levels are large jumps in abilities, it makes the player levels uneven

I find immediate game rewards that keep things moving because players will want to do something worth spending their Inspiration on, which rewards everyone.

Quote from: robiswrong;766844Indeed.

As well as between "good for me" and "good for everyone".

Spot on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;766984Great idea they should pack each starter set with 3 experienced immersive roleplayers ;)

What's the freight on 750 pounds to Singapore?

Quote from: talysman;766236I think it's a bad idea. You don't reward roleplaying, because roleplaying *is* the reward. However, if instead you give advantage to anyone who comes up with an inspired idea, that would work.

That's like saying you don't need to reward killing monsters because monster killing is its own reward.

For me, inspiration (along with the various background elements) might be the best part of 5e.  It's one of the few mechanics that doesn't feel like game.  

Want players to do certain things with their characters?  Create an in-game incentive.  That's RPG design 101.

VS

Quote from: jibbajibba;766984Great idea they should pack each starter set with 3 experienced immersive roleplayers ;)

You must have missed my post where I said it could have value to a novice.

Edit: Just realized I actually may not have stated the above in a previous post after all; I was confusing my thoughts on CR with my thoughts on Bennies. I don't like to use either one.


But the main reason we can't include 3 immersive roleplayers is that they would suffocate in the shrink wrap.

Quote from: jibbajibba;766985I guess part of this comes down to bennies/hero points etc and how comfortable you are with them.
I have been using them as part of James Bond since about 83 or so so entirely comfortable and have zero issue with them as a mechanic and have never felt they impacted roleplay negatively at all.

It's good that it works for you, but everyone's gaming experience is different.

Just curious, are you using Top Secret? Loved that game but have not played it in a bazillion years.

Or is it a specific james bond game?

The argument about a roleplaying mechanic actually reducing roleplaying reminds me of the republicans arguing against a minimum wage because it somehow hurts workers either by teaching them that some McJob is equal to a "real job" or because the minimum is too low.  Those republicans say wages should be higher than ten bucks (or whatever) an hour, yet they refuse to put in a floor.

Inspiration and backgrounds don't stop you from raising the roleplaying bar as high as you want.  There's no ceiling.  Want more?  Keep going?  However, I believe most inspiration/background fans like the idea that there's some kind of baseline roleplaying incentive woven into the core of 5e.

Do you have to have flaws and bonds and ideals written down on your character sheet or even use them in your game?  No.  But then you don't need ability scores either.  Tabletop fantasy roleplaying can be had without them.  

VS

Quote from: Bill;767180It's good that it works for you, but everyone's gaming experience is different.

Just curious, are you using Top Secret? Loved that game but have not played it in a bazillion years.

Or is it a specific james bond game?

James bond 007 role playing from Victory games released in 82/83 I think one of the first games to use hero points as a meta mechanic to try and emulate genre conventions.

Before considering the ass-backwardness of the plan, what strikes me as silly in the first place is the self-righteous hubris of the crusaders who feel a vocation to push people to role-play the "right" way (other than which, they call not role-playing at all).

Even if you affect to spell your name with a bullet in the middle, this is not art and players are not hirelings on your set. It's a game for fun -- everyone's fun, not just a self-proclaimed elite.

If "good" rp is worth a +1 on anything, then someone consistently engaged in it should get +1 to everything all the time.

But then it wouldn't be a bone for the GM to throw, would it? And it would hardly meet the a la mode notion of 'fairness' for a good player to get such an advantage over mediocre ones.

Therefore, we need good role-playing to be scarce (or at least to short-change the really good players).

This is brilliance on par with the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

People who are good at and enjoy roleplaying their character will do so with or without an inspiration reward. Those who are not will simply come up with boilerplate routines to demonstrate their character's cowardice, greed, etc. each session. And it will all be very overt instead of naturalistic.

I don't mind a re-roll or advantage benefit once a session. Call it a fate point or a hero point. I just don't think you can coax better roleplaying out of people with a reward.

Anticipating a charge of hypocrisy, since I regard the use of that meta-game +1 as not-rp:

True, it seems to me not significantly more rp than eating a cookie Dave gave me in real life in return for my figure giving his a magic item in the game.

However, I don't privilege my preference as some kind of moral value I have a duty to try
to coerce people who don't share it into embracing. Let them play however they find fun, that's my view.

The other side is on a high horse that looks to me more like just thespian acting than like the kind of role-playing that really distinguishes an RPG from another kind of game (say, Hungry Hungry Hippos) with superfluous banter added.

Again, it's fine if that's what they want to  play. But their condescending attitude toward the whole hobby that existed before they came along? That horse was flogged to death years before the Forge zombified it.

Quote from: Phillip;767756Before considering the ass-backwardness of the plan, what strikes me as silly in the first place is the self-righteous hubris of the crusaders who feel a vocation to push people to role-play the "right" way (other than which, they call not role-playing at all).

Even if you affect to spell your name with a bullet in the middle, this is not art and players are not hirelings on your set. It's a game for fun -- everyone's fun, not just a self-proclaimed elite.

Okay, first of all, of course it's art. Roleplaying games effectively are a form of literature, crossbred with all kinds of games, social interaction and what not. That just doesn't mean it is something special, quite the contrary. Kindergarten kids who draw their parents as heads with arms and legs produce art; bored students who doodle on their work sheets produce art; a bunch of overweight guys sitting around in a room and pretend they're pirates is art. There is just nothing special about it. Something being art or not says absolutely nothing about the objective or subjective value of an activity. We are engaged in roleplaying games because we enjoy them. That is not better or worse to draw similar enjoyment from drawing churches, writing poems or knitting scarfs.
If an activity provides little to no practical purpose beyond offering enjoyment and some sort of pleasing aesthetics (which roleplaying certainly does), it qualifies as an artform. That is, however, by no means any justification of pretentious snobbery; you don't need to be a recognized connaisseur after all to enjoy this kind of activity.

Second, (and that is my personal pretentious snobbery speaking), it is outright impossible to run a game as a gamemaster without providing some sort of direction. There is a truism in pedagogics that "You cannot not educate". As a gamemaster it is your responsibility to grant some sort of feedback to your players, be it good or bad; naturally, actions that lead to a positive outcome will be more popular and will probably be repeated; actions that fail to succeed in the expected way are likely to become less common; that is essentially basic operant conditioning, and it works. Once one of your players had his character ran into a trap because they weren't looking, they will start looking for traps; once you have established that torturing prisoners will provide your players with additional useful information, the characters will lose inhibitions against torture. This is a part of the gamemaster responsibility package - as long as you act as some sort of interpreter of possible outcomes, you shape the expectations and potential actions of your players.
So. granting some sort of benefit for something you as a GM  considers to be contributing to the game, clever or just plain entertaining, that's not some of paradigm shift; it's just more of the same, perhaps a bit more in the open.  Is it meta-gamey? Sure. It is also a bit like giving someone a cookie for having great sex, because in the end contributing to something you are at least half-way enthusiastic about really should be its own reward, but that is not how it works most of the time. It might be surprising, but people like rewards and basking in the admiration of their peers.
So, in the end, who gets hurt by a mechanic like this?

Quote from: Beagle;767810It is also a bit like giving someone a cookie for having great sex, because in the end contributing to something you are at least half-way enthusiastic about really should be its own reward

See, here's how I look at it, continuing your analogy.

Person X is a crappy lover.  All they care about is themselves.  If they actually cared about the other person, sex would be better for both parties because of the increased enthusiasm.

That's an experience that they don't have, so they can't see that reward.  So, instead of trying to convince them of that, Person Y says, "tell you what, if you do during sex, I'll make you some cookies."

So now they're doing for the cookies.  Fine.  They're *still doing it*.  Which means that there's a good chance that Person Y will get what they want, become more enthused, and generate the heightened experience that they wanted in the first place - making sex better for both Person X and Person Y.

Now that Person X has seen how doing makes sex better for *both people*, they might go "hey, you know what, this is awesome, and I should do this every time!"  You've changed the extrinsic reward (cookies) to an intrinsic reward (better sex).  In RPG land, you've changed the extrinsic reward (bonuses) for an intrinsic reward (more immersive play).

And even after you've made that switch, cookies are damn awesome, so what's the problem with having cookies after sex, even if you don't need them for motivation any more?

I don't really think of these sorts of rules (inspiration in 5E or analogous effects in Pendragon, Prince Valiant or other games) as rewards to a player for behaving in a way the game designer approves of. If that were the case, I would agree that we should all fuck that noise. But there is another side to this issue: what if you want a game where characters elevate their game when something they are passionate about is on the line? I think there is definitely a point of that. If you agree, then the only question is how it should look, mechanically. And there are always a million different fiddly, unimportant opinions about mechanics. So, while I don't like manipulating people to role-play 'correctly', I like the Inspiration mechanics. They add another dimension to the character and create situations where different sorts of characters with different sorts of quirks, interests, relationships, fears, etc. will find themselves challenged or helped by their various personal characteristics. If you can't figure out a way to make that interesting, you are a shitty DM and/or player.

@ Venger, Beagle, Rob:

Okay, then if you lot show up at my table, I guess I should give you metagame incentives to give up your thespian style in favor of actually approaching the situation from an in-character perspective?

Well, maybe it's to the point here how much more obviously counterproductive that would be! It's easy to see that for each step in that direction, you are required to take a step -- probably a bigger step -- right back into metagaming.

So maybe you would not find that so irritating.

How about if every time you do your Scottish Dwarf schtick, you're required to restate things in the game's technical jargon? Fuck me, once again that's just the kind of behavior Forge-y fans love and not what I prefer.

Funny how a rule that privileges one group isn't inconvenient for that group. As to the rest, well, as Marie Antoinette put it, if they have no bread then they should just have the servants bring cake; what's the problem with those peasants?

Quote from: robiswrong;767823See, here's how I look at it, continuing your analogy.

You're assuming that Roleplaying from an external perspective (for reward, as an internal movie or book running in your head, etc) is the same as Roleplaying from an internal perspective (thinking and feeling as the character does).

In the case of the cookie, you're not teaching empathy or consideration because everything (the cookie, better sex, etc) directly benefits the person.  Pleasing their partner is only a means to that end.

You're not going to teach thinking as a character by training someone to think about the character.

Quote from: Phillip;767859@ Venger, Beagle, Rob:

Okay, then if you lot show up at my table, I guess I should give you metagame incentives to give up your thespian style in favor of actually approaching the situation from an in-character perspective?

Well, maybe it's to the point here how much more obviously counterproductive that would be! It's easy to see that for each step in that direction, you are required to take a step -- probably a bigger step -- right back into metagaming.

Why? Yes, rewards for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is a metagaming concept, but is it truly worse than, let's say, gain XP (an inherently metagaming concept anyway) for beating up monsters or collecting treasure?

Quote from: Phillip;767859Funny how a rule that privileges one group isn't inconvenient for that group. As to the rest, well, as Marie Antoinette put it, if they have no bread then they should just have the servants bring cake; what's the problem with those peasants?

 I am full aware that I now enter condescending elitist territory, but roleplaying games live and die by the contributions of each and everyone involved, and they certainly do not work like a sewage treatment plant: if shit goes in, shit comes out. If you get some players who contribute greatly to the game and put some real effort into it - whatever form these contributions may take (I am perfectly fine with rewarding players for providing a decent meal for instance) - maybe, just maybe, they deserve a bit of extra credit.
I may completely misinterpret your intentions (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I have the impression that you this whole issue under a more competitive perspective than I do; that one player's reward implies another player's punishment. While I can see that a disparity in these rewards may cause conflicts, I don't care. I don't want to care, because this is one of the examples where the argument of fairness and equality can so easily become a smokescreen for petty enviousness, and that's not something I want to promote among my players.

Quote from: Larsdangly;767845I don't really think of these sorts of rules (inspiration in 5E or analogous effects in Pendragon, Prince Valiant or other games) as rewards to a player for behaving in a way the game designer approves of. If that were the case, I would agree that we should all fuck that noise.

I don't see Pendragon's trait and passion rules in the same light as this. In any case, they are internally balanced, so in the same game some players can choose to use them while others don't. (They can still come into play with such things as magic, but the more ordinary use for inspiration is strictly optional.)

 

QuoteBut there is another side to this issue: what if you want a game where characters elevate their game when something they are passionate about is on the line?

If by "elevate their game" you mean "get a +1 bonus to anything," then obviously that's what you want. It's no more intrinsic to wanting a game in which things are on the line, than it is intrinsic to wanting a game in which characters make cynical quips, to have them turn into kung-fu master giant robot pandas with heat-ray eyes when they do.

QuoteI think there is definitely a point of that

Yes: If what you want is Fate, or Toon, or Hong Kong Action Theater!, or My Life With Master, or Polaris, or Rolemaster -- whatever flavor faves ya -- then do yourself a favor and grab yourself some.

How does this become an argument for injecting a half-assed imitation into the official baseline rules of D&D, a game that has an identity of its own?

Should we also change RuneQuest and Champions into games that copy D&D style classes, levels, hit points, experience points, attack roll/armor class, alignments, etc.? Are we so much richer for quashing so much diversity, another step closer to the ideal of homogeneity that all right-thinking people must by definition long for?

QuoteIf you agree, then the only question is how it should look, mechanically. And there are always a million different fiddly, unimportant opinions about mechanics. So, while I don't like manipulating people to role-play 'correctly', I like the Inspiration mechanics. They add another dimension to the character and create situations where different sorts of characters with different sorts of quirks, interests, relationships, fears, etc. will find themselves challenged or helped by their various personal characteristics. If you can't figure out a way to make that interesting, you are a shitty DM and/or player.

Quote from: Phillip;767859@ Venger, Beagle, Rob:

Okay, then if you lot show up at my table, I guess I should give you metagame incentives to give up your thespian style in favor of actually approaching the situation from an in-character perspective?

You're making a lot of assumptions about my play style that simply aren't correct.

Quote from: Phillip;767859Well, maybe it's to the point here how much more obviously counterproductive that would be! It's easy to see that for each step in that direction, you are required to take a step -- probably a bigger step -- right back into metagaming.

If my character is in love with Jane, then how in hell is it metagaming for me to protect Jane?

Maybe you can argue I'm not doing it "for the right reasons".  Um, okay.  How the hell do you tell the difference at the table, unless you can read minds?

And if someone *is* doing it for the "right" reasons (immersion as opposed to rewards), then what harm does giving them the reward do?

And if they're doing it for the "wrong" reasons, then if the external behavior is closer to what you'd supposedly want anyway (consistency with the character), then isn't that still a win?

Quote from: Phillip;767859How about if every time you do your Scottish Dwarf schtick, you're required to restate things in the game's technical jargon? Fuck me, once again that's just the kind of behavior Forge-y fans love and not what I prefer.

Huh?  Funny, that, even when I play Fate I do my damnedest to keep game jargon out of the game, and focus on what's actually happening.  In any game I play, I try to keep game jargon to a minimum (well, unless I'm teaching the system, where it's kind of unavoidable).

When people say "I do with " I stop them and tell them, "okay, that's fine, what do you actually *do*?".  This is the opposite of making people take what they're doing in character and rephrase it in game-talk.  The exact opposite.  If they just said "I slide under the door as it closes shut" I wouldn't ask them to rephrase that in game jargon.  It they say "I use Athletics to Overcome the Sliding Door aspect", then I do tell them "uh, what?  What are you actually doing here?"

I think my Fate games actually end up less jargon-filled than when I play D&D.

Quote from: Phillip;767859Funny how a rule that privileges one group isn't inconvenient for that group. As to the rest, well, as Marie Antoinette put it, if they have no bread then they should just have the servants bring cake; what's the problem with those peasants?

I don't even know what this means.

Quote from: CRKrueger;767869You're assuming that Roleplaying from an external perspective (for reward, as an internal movie or book running in your head, etc) is the same as Roleplaying from an internal perspective (thinking and feeling as the character does).

Not at all.  I agree that they're not.  I totally and utterly agree that they're not.  But to think as the character, you have to first consider who the character is, right?  And you can't really do that if you think of the character as nothing more than a game pawn.

For beginning roleplayers, just the act of thinking about who the character is is closer to actually immersing themselves in the role.  You've progressed past that.  That's great.

Quote from: CRKrueger;767869In the case of the cookie, you're not teaching empathy or consideration because everything (the cookie, better sex, etc) directly benefits the person.  Pleasing their partner is only a means to that end.

I said that.

The point is that extrinsic rewards can lead people to experiences that they wouldn't otherwise have, and thus lead to the behavior becoming intrinsically rewarded.

Quote from: CRKrueger;767869You're not going to teach thinking as a character by training someone to think about the character.

Isn't the first step of empathy (you know, putting yourself in another shoes) thinking about how that person would feel?  It's a basic first step.  It's not the master class.

Quote from: Beagle;767879Why? Yes, rewards for roleplaying in a roleplaying game is a metagaming concept, but is it truly worse than, let's say, gain XP (an inherently metagaming concept anyway) for beating up monsters or collecting treasure?

Yes, the instance at hand is, but it doesn't matter because -- I know this is a difficult old-fashioned concept -- two wrongs don't make one right.



 

QuoteI am full aware that I now enter condescending elitist territory, but roleplaying games live and die by the contributions of each and everyone involved, and they certainly do not work like a sewage treatment plant: if shit goes in, shit comes out. If you get some players who contribute greatly to the game and put some real effort into it - whatever form these contributions may take (I am perfectly fine with rewarding players for providing a decent meal for instance) - maybe, just maybe, they deserve a bit of extra credit.
I may completely misinterpret your intentions (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I have the impression that you this whole issue under a more competitive perspective than I do; that one player's reward implies another player's punishment. While I can see that a disparity in these rewards may cause conflicts, I don't care. I don't want to care, because this is one of the examples where the argument of fairness and equality can so easily become a smokescreen for petty enviousness, and that's not something I want to promote among my players.

Yes, it is condescending elitist territory when you call shit the fun people get from playing the game without artsy pretensions. It's really egregious when you're putting down  the people who created the hobby -- starting with D&D itself! If you prefer your own more brilliant game, then go ahead and play it. Why should you be slumming with us savages? Do you really think we're going to thank you for bringing us again the One True Way we've rejected for 40 years? Maybe we'll just toss you in the pot and ask Pope Edwards to send more fryers!

Quote from: mcbobbo;766720Remember that scene from tye Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo his choice of pill.  I'll do that here, but wrap it in a spoiler tag.  Don't open it unless you accept the possibility that you can't unlearn that...

Spoiler

A huge portion of game theory, particularly in the modern world, is a mind job.

Critical hits, or 'always hits on a 20' are designed to make the game more addictive by doling out little doses of dopamine that are beyond anyone's control.

System mastery is a mind job too.

And don't get me STARTED on MMOs.

Incentives are pretty mild.

I know you posted that not in a condescending way but in an honest and fun way to explain. Goddamit McBobo - you made me feel young again. Thank you. LOL

I still don't see how many sacred bits of D&D aren't already meta-gamey: HP, rolling dice, character sheets, class/level choice, XP, mapping, any and all out-of-character planning, asking questions of the DM about sensory input, etc. etc. etc.

These are all way, way out of the character's head but apparently because we've done it that way for so long we just internalize it. Stopping the action to roll dice, cheering for the natural 20, getting up to get a beer, none of this has anything to do with the "FULL CHARACTER IMMERSION" that seems like the Holy Grail around here (and yet sounds far, far more thespy than any kind of metagame point economy, which is distinctly gamey). So now "inspiration" is somehow an egregious offender against a dogma that was false to begin with.

There is nothing in 5e that makes it superior to 1e(etc.) in my eyes, but this horrific recoil at METAGAMING THESPY FORGERS AAAAAH strikes as patently disingenuous.

Quote from: matthulhu;767899I still don't see how many sacred bits of D&D aren't already meta-gamey: HP, rolling dice, character sheets, class/level choice, XP, mapping, any and all out-of-character planning, asking questions of the DM about sensory input, etc. etc. etc.

These are all way, way out of the character's head but apparently because we've done it that way for so long we just internalize it. Stopping the action to roll dice, cheering for the natural 20, getting up to get a beer, none of this has anything to do with the "FULL CHARACTER IMMERSION" that seems like the Holy Grail around here (and yet sounds far, far more thespy than any kind of metagame point economy, which is distinctly gamey). So now "inspiration" is somehow an egregious offender against a dogma that was false to begin with.

There is nothing in 5e that makes it superior to 1e(etc.) in my eyes, but this horrific recoil at METAGAMING THESPY FORGERS AAAAAH strikes as patently disingenuous.

Who the fuck am I to tell someone what does or does not break their immersion?

If somebody finds that Inspiration kills immersion for them, fine, don't use it.  No skin off my nose.

My only beef is when people start saying that by using Inspiration, I'm no longer roleplaying.  They don't know what breaks my immersion any more than I know what breaks theirs.

Robiswrong:

It is not metagaming to protect Jane. Protecting Jane is not the subject here.

The subject here is a GM giving a player a point to spend. That's metagaming.

It would not be metagaming if the character had a point to spend. If Jane has $10, she can give it to you. She can't give you a +1 on your Perception Check that she got for fulfilling a Bond.

I can dig some things some people would call metagaming, such as getting a Gygaxian pun in a dungeon. But guess what? Those have never been an obligatory part of the game.

As I've said before, it looks like it should be simple to ignore this rule. It would be psychologically and socially easier for many people if it were explicitely stated as an optional elaboration.

And if one pill is good, the Wizards might yet decide a whole bottle full is better. That's their modus operandi over the past decade and a half, and it has not all come in separately balanced modules.

Quote from: Phillip;767906It is not metagaming to protect Jane. Protecting Jane is not the subject here.

The subject here is a GM giving a player a point to spend. That's metagaming.

It's certainly a dissociated decision, as it's a resource the character has no concept of.

Quote from: Phillip;767906As I've said before, it looks like it should be simple to ignore this rule. It would be psychologically and socially easier for many people if it were explicitely stated as an optional elaboration.

That's a fair statement.

Quote from: Phillip;767906And if one pill is good, the Wizards might yet decide a whole bottle full is better. That's their modus operandi over the past decade and a half, and it has not all come in separately balanced modules.

Believe it or not, *I agree*.  I like Fate, but when I play D&D, I want to play D&D.  If I wanted to play Fate at that point in time, I would.  Much the same way as I like sushi, and I like ice cream.  But I don't want raw-fish-flavored ice cream, and when I want ice cream, I want ice cream, damnit, not fish.

Quote from: matthulhu;767899I still don't see how many sacred bits of D&D aren't already meta-gamey: HP, rolling dice, character sheets, class/level choice, XP, mapping, any and all out-of-character planning, asking questions of the DM about sensory input, etc. etc. etc.

Then you simply don't know what metagame means. You could start by paying attention to what actually is so called.

Look at what wer're talking about here: The ref gives you, the player, a free +1 on any dice roll, that you can choose when to use or choose to give to another player. Even if your character role is more or less yourself -- something I think is fine, but bugs the thespian/math-model ideologues -- are those transactions part of the game world at all, never mind perceptible to and controlled by the character?

A lot of things you mentioned simply are not necessary for a player to handle; some indeed were not even recommended as being laid on players in previous editions. Some are actually pre- or post-play concerns, just like choosing to play a game in the first place -- so not an issue when we are actually concerned with role-playing. Asking for your character's sensory data is a sheer necessity, since you have no other way to get it.

QuoteThese are all way, way out of the character's head but apparently because we've done it that way for so long we just internalize it. Stopping the action to roll dice, cheering for the natural 20, getting up to get a beer, none of this has anything to do with the "FULL CHARACTER IMMERSION" that seems like the Holy Grail around here (and yet sounds far, far more thespy than any kind of metagame point economy, which is distinctly gamey). So now "inspiration" is somehow an egregious offender against a dogma that was false to begin with.

There is nothing in 5e that makes it superior to 1e(etc.) in my eyes, but this horrific recoil at METAGAMING THESPY FORGERS AAAAAH strikes as patently disingenuous.

What's either disingenuous or honestly clueless is your insistance that EVERYTHING is just the same, there's NO DIFFERENCE between role-playing and Yahtzee, horrific recoil from those nit-picking grognards AAAH!

Quote from: Phillip;767886Yes, the instance at hand is, but it doesn't matter because -- I know this is a difficult old-fashioned concept -- two wrongs don't make one right.

Let me rephrase that: Why do you think these rewards are worse than, to stay with the example, getting XP for defeating monsters? Or for collecting treasure for that matter?

 

Quote from: Phillip;767886Yes, it is condescending elitist territory when you call shit the fun people get from playing the game without artsy pretensions.

I never stated what exactly should be seen as a contribution to the game. I talked about effort and active participation. This has nothing to do with 'artsiness' (again, art is not a measure of quality by any means). Besides, that "one true way" that D&D crowd you apparantly think of, has rejected: in the AD&D (2nd edition) DM guide,  it states pretty explicitly that players who contribute to the game deserve rewards (in form of additional XP); active participating, making the game more fun for others, that's good and reward-worthy. Being disruptive and making fun at the expense of others "is not really deserving a reward", "tends to get on everyone's nerves quickly" etc. So, those 40 years you mentioned? They ended in the eighties, at least from the publisher's side.

But you know what: If you do interrupt the game frequently or just sit there and expect to be entertained without actively participating (or worse: both), well then yes, you do not deserve the same amount of attention and respect as the hypothetical other player who does contribute to the game, puts some effort into the game and who is attentive to his fellow players.  And if that establishes some sort of evilbad elitism, RPGs aren't nearly elitist enough.
So, I really don't care about different playstyles that much - I think I am halfway adaptable (even though people who think it is some sort of irregularity to actually play a role in a roleplaying game tend to irritate me). What I care about is a halfway decent enthusiasm for the game, and fellow players who - and that is certainly as condescending as humanly possible - are not just there to eat the snacks and because they have nothing better to do.

Beagle:

It's worse than getting xp awards because I'm not required as a player to bother with xp. If I want to, then quotes in gold value are perfectly in character, for the kind of character for which D&D was designed (just read Howard's tales of Conan the Cimmerian sometime).

It's worse because even if I concern myself with xp, I am not required to do anything out of character in play. I acquire treasures and defeat monsters -- or don't -- with my character's resources. I wield a sword or shovel or whatever; I don't wield a bonus that has no relation at all to my character's powers.

As I've said before on these forums, what is OOC depends on the character in question. The Spectre or a Prince of Amber has awesome reality-warping powers. Joss in Dangerous Journeys seem to me as in-character in Aerth as RuneQuest spells are in Glorantha. Ian Fleming's James Bond tallying how many "luck points" he has to spend? I don't see it.

Where's the breaking point? For the designer of Savage Worlds, it was certainty that a figure could not be killed; hence Bennies in that game merely increase the chance of survival. Someone else might consider that too little metagame control, a third person too much.

Beagle: You're setting up a false dichotomy. Nonetheless, look at the kind of game you propose.

No difference between what you get out of the game by not participating versus actively engaging? Really?

That right there looks like your fundamental problem. Fortunately, it's not designed into the classic Dungeons and Dragons game!

First, do no harm. Then you won't have the problem of making a bigger mess trying to fix what you broke in the first place.

Is it your own game you're talking about, or your perception of 4e D&D, or just a straw man, or whst?

Quote from: Haffrung;767775I just don't think you can coax better roleplaying out of people with a reward.

I can say that, based upon my experience, that's not true. I have two players who tend to ignore their character and play their stats. They're surrounded by three other excellent roleplayers, so peer pressure hasn't done anything except make them take a further back seat.

 I have been handing out Inspiration in the past couple sessions. It's a night and day difference with those two players. Last session, the paladin performed a rear guard action while shouting about burning his foes before the undefeated Sun. This is a guy that, before that, has literally said to me "I make a Persuasion check" in lieu of actually role playing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;767869You're assuming that Roleplaying from an external perspective (for reward, as an internal movie or book running in your head, etc) is the same as Roleplaying from an internal perspective (thinking and feeling as the character does).

In the case of the cookie, you're not teaching empathy or consideration because everything (the cookie, better sex, etc) directly benefits the person.  Pleasing their partner is only a means to that end.

You're not going to teach thinking as a character by training someone to think about the character.

If that helps you sleep at night go for it. Inspiration does exactly what it says on the tin for us introverted non sexy,  non charismatic women that aren't thespians. And it does the same for guys in the same position.

Don't even say it doesn't help a quiet person like myself to go outside my shell. It might prove to be less then factual.

Quite simply it helps people to get past simple raw abilities and just be the concept that's in your mind in conjunction with your ideal, bond and flaw. I already know you'll say it's storytelling and you already know I think you're full of it. So give a compelling reason for your view already other then just get lucky or be confident.

Quote from: Marleycat;767988If that helps you sleep at night go for it. Inspiration does exactly what it says on the tin for us introverted non sexy,  non charismatic women that aren't thespians. And it does the same for guys in the same position.

Don't even say it doesn't help a quiet person like myself to go outside my shell. It might prove to be less then factual.

Yeah, teach them how to roleplay behind a narrative metalayer. ;)

The cultish assumption that thespian style is the One True Way irks me.

That -- and all the  metagame baggage it seems to demand -- is just what I  can get playing conventional card, dice and board games.

The special appeal of RPGs is the quality of really playing the game by engaging the world from the role's POV. It's not laying a superfluous performance on top of abstract mechanical actions!

Yet the very speciality is just what thespian/modelers deprecate, while billing the common and superficial non-RPG behavior as the only genuine role-playing.

I tried playing in a game of hardcore thespians. Those three sessions were the dullest 18 or so hours of my frp career, worse even than the 4e experiences that had me barely awake (while the friend who urged me to come along literally fell asleep waiting for his turn).

It was hour after hour of posturing. My character was a fiighter, and the only action he got in was knocking out another p.c. when she tried to attack a fellow  party member. When she woke up, she ran off in a huff. I would call the whole thing juvenile, except I doubt most kids would find it entertaining.

Maybe I could  have had fun if I had a similarly insipid character. Apparently the bone I was throne was being given a magic sword just so a higher-level character (one of the group who were also jointly my mercenary  soldier's employers) could play some pranks on me.

Those players have been together for ages. Everybody knows the cast's soap-opera history. They are all amused by the endless string of trivial pursuits accompanied by flamboyant monologues.

More fun to 'em. But that campaign was not for me.

I don't come for amateur theatrics, even if they're more exciting than "Waiting for Godot" with costumes made of magic items. Deeds are worth more than words. The character of a character is shown in live choices, not in prancing like a prat and offering one's own commentary on it -- unless that really is the kind of character one likes to play.

"Wish-fulfilling story-telling" (with what seem to me pretty dull wishes) is a pretty good description of that.

"A real challenge" describes what I prefer. Keep the choices and consequences coming full steam! That does  not require overwrought characterizations. Figures can act and speak in character   without needing to be  cartoons or have every little move blown up into a Bif-Bam-Pow!-fest.

In fact, I'd say that literally talking in character, first-person, is something I don't miss when it's only an occasional conceit. Hell,  my Elvish and Klingon are so rusty I'd need subtitles anyway!

So I'm getting a few things you don't like, and a few things you do.

You don't like:

1) Play Yahtzee and then tell a story about the dice.

2) Overlong speeches about "look at my awesome character and my backstory"

3) Soap-opera style play

4) Games where nothing goddamn happens

5) "Roll the dice to see how awesome you are"

6) Games that are about wish-fulfillment/power fantasies - usually indicated by low or no risk, right?

So....  I don't play that way.  Most of the things in that list are things I'm uninterested in.  I've never done the "Yahtzee then tell a story" thing, so I can't really comment on it one way or the other, but the rest of your list is pretty much my list of RPG turnoffs.

Quote from: Phillip;767859@ Venger, Beagle, Rob:

Okay, then if you lot show up at my table, I guess I should give you metagame incentives to give up your thespian style in favor of actually approaching the situation from an in-character perspective?

Well, maybe it's to the point here how much more obviously counterproductive that would be! It's easy to see that for each step in that direction, you are required to take a step -- probably a bigger step -- right back into metagaming.

So maybe you would not find that so irritating.

How about if every time you do your Scottish Dwarf schtick, you're required to restate things in the game's technical jargon? Fuck me, once again that's just the kind of behavior Forge-y fans love and not what I prefer.

Funny how a rule that privileges one group isn't inconvenient for that group. As to the rest, well, as Marie Antoinette put it, if they have no bread then they should just have the servants bring cake; what's the problem with those peasants?

I'd like to see what that would look like (the part I put in bold).

Also, you can't stop meta-gaming.  The human mind is too advanced.  No matter how great a DM you are or how many awesome props or how terrific the story, I will continually thinking about the experience as a game in addition to viewing it as "real life except not really me".

So, if meta-gaming is inevitable, why not focus on the things that are most important in a roleplaying game?  Like roleplaying!

VS

Quote from: Phillip;767880I don't see Pendragon's trait and passion rules in the same light as this. In any case, they are internally balanced, so in the same game some players can choose to use them while others don't. (They can still come into play with such things as magic, but the more ordinary use for inspiration is strictly optional.)

 
If by "elevate their game" you mean "get a +1 bonus to anything," then obviously that's what you want. It's no more intrinsic to wanting a game in which things are on the line, than it is intrinsic to wanting a game in which characters make cynical quips, to have them turn into kung-fu master giant robot pandas with heat-ray eyes when they do.


Yes: If what you want is Fate, or Toon, or Hong Kong Action Theater!, or My Life With Master, or Polaris, or Rolemaster -- whatever flavor faves ya -- then do yourself a favor and grab yourself some.

How does this become an argument for injecting a half-assed imitation into the official baseline rules of D&D, a game that has an identity of its own?

Should we also change RuneQuest and Champions into games that copy D&D style classes, levels, hit points, experience points, attack roll/armor class, alignments, etc.? Are we so much richer for quashing so much diversity, another step closer to the ideal of homogeneity that all right-thinking people must by definition long for?

What's wrong with Toon?  It's the ultimate Cartoon Roleplaying Game!

Addressing the larger question, should we change old, familiar RPGs to be more like newer, more innovative RPGs if it results in a better game?  Hells yes!  Of course, what is innovative or better for me might not be so for you.  Them's the breaks.  D&D took a left turn you didn't like.  :(

VS

Quote from: Phillip;768005I tried playing in a game of hardcore thespians. Those three sessions were the dullest 18 or so hours of my frp career, worse even than the 4e experiences that had me barely awake (while the friend who urged me to come along literally fell asleep waiting for his turn).

It was hour after hour of posturing. My character was a fiighter, and the only action he got in was knocking out another p.c. when she tried to attack a fellow  party member. When she woke up, she ran off in a huff. I would call the whole thing juvenile, except I doubt most kids would find it entertaining.

Maybe I could  have had fun if I had a similarly insipid character. Apparently the bone I was throne was being given a magic sword just so a higher-level character (one of the group who were also jointly my mercenary  soldier's employers) could play some pranks on me.

Those players have been together for ages. Everybody knows the cast's soap-opera history. They are all amused by the endless string of trivial pursuits accompanied by flamboyant monologues.

More fun to 'em. But that campaign was not for me.

I don't come for amateur theatrics, even if they're more exciting than "Waiting for Godot" with costumes made of magic items. Deeds are worth more than words. The character of a character is shown in live choices, not in prancing like a prat and offering one's own commentary on it -- unless that really is the kind of character one likes to play.

"Wish-fulfilling story-telling" (with what seem to me pretty dull wishes) is a pretty good description of that.

"A real challenge" describes what I prefer. Keep the choices and consequences coming full steam! That does  not require overwrought characterizations. Figures can act and speak in character   without needing to be  cartoons or have every little move blown up into a Bif-Bam-Pow!-fest.

In fact, I'd say that literally talking in character, first-person, is something I don't miss when it's only an occasional conceit. Hell,  my Elvish and Klingon are so rusty I'd need subtitles anyway!

I agree.  That sounds like a boring, terrible gaming experience.  What we're doing with inspiration, backgrounds, etc. is not like what you experienced 99% of the time.  

Did you ever consider that inspiration might curtail the hour after hour thespian regalia?  You do your thing in character, the DM gives you a nod or thumbs up or says "you get an inspiration point for that", and then the story moves on.  Shit, get off the pot, get on with the adventure.

Find a different group with different players, try 5e RAW for 2 or 3 sessions and then if you still hate it, you'll actually have a reason... because citing tedious hours spent gaming with overly theatrical d-bags isn't much of an argument.  Those assholes could probably make any of us hate hit points or armor class or even the concept of damage!

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;768174I'd like to see what that would look like (the part I put in bold).

Also, you can't stop meta-gaming.  The human mind is too advanced.  No matter how great a DM you are or how many awesome props or how terrific the story, I will continually thinking about the experience as a game in addition to viewing it as "real life except not really me".

So, if meta-gaming is inevitable, why not focus on the things that are most important in a roleplaying game?  Like roleplaying!

VS

no.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.  The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768228no.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.  The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

In other words, every single RPG session includes time X divided into...
A: Amount of time spent thinking in character
B: Amount of time spent thinking out of character

Every metagame decision increases B and decreases A.

The percentage of A to B that seems fun will be subjective and different to each person.
Whether a certain decision is A or B is not subjective.

Quote from: tenbones;767893I know you posted that not in a condescending way but in an honest and fun way to explain. Goddamit McBobo - you made me feel young again. Thank you. LOL

:hatsoff:

Quote from: CRKrueger;768256In other words, every single RPG session includes time X divided into...
A: Amount of time spent thinking in character
B: Amount of time spent thinking out of character

Every metagame decision increases B and decreases A.

The percentage of A to B that seems fun will be subjective and different to each person.
Whether a certain decision is A or B is not subjective.

But do note that zero time spent with B means you fail at D&D.  While zero time spent with A means almost nothing, except to those who prefer A, who aren't the target for Inspiration anyway.

Why not add a house rule that in order to pass your Inspiration to another player you have to say something inspirational?  Wouldn't that bring you closer to A, as desired?

Or as others have said, fine, don't use it.  Just stop short of advocating that nobody uses it and there's nothing left to discuss.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768228The object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.

This is not an universal truth about roleplaying. The idea of immersion isn't even approached in early D&D texts, so anyone just picking up first edition and reading it would be hard pressed to even know immersion was the supposed goal of the game, as opposed to the numerous admonitions to play intelligently and carefully. There is nothing stopping an Intelligence 3 character's player from solving a dungeon puzzle (thank God) although by "immersion" standards that player is not even attempting to emulate his character. All this talk of immersion sounds like the preamble to a Vampire LARP rulebook.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276But do note that zero time spent with B means you fail at D&D.  While zero time spent with A means almost nothing, except to those who prefer A, who aren't the target for Inspiration anyway.

Since I specifically said every roleplay session includes both then by definition I understand that 100% of one isn't a Roleplaying Game.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276Why not add a house rule that in order to pass your Inspiration to another player you have to say something inspirational?  Wouldn't that bring you closer to A, as desired?

The only use I may have for Inspiration is...
1. Divine Inspiration calling on a god for aid during a moment of crisis.
2. Inspiration granted by a bard or some kind of in-game ability.
3. If I did use a Personality Mechanic (freqnently called Passions when used in this manner), it sure at hell wouldn't be transferrable or capable of being stored as a metagame economy.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276Or as others have said, fine, don't use it.  Just stop short of advocating that nobody uses it and there's nothing left to discuss.

I never advocated no one use it, I said it surprised me that is was in Basic and it should have been an optional module, not in Basic.  I also disagreed when it was put forth that Inspiration was something that could teach roleplaying.

Disagreeing and stating opinions is still allowed as far as I can tell, and believe me, when I'm advocating for you to not do something, you'll know it.

Well looks like I'll be getting a new group member come August maybee who has zero RPG experience.

If she turns out to be a wallflower then I may start using and encouraging inspiration use and see what happens. If it doesnt seem to be working as intended then easy enough to drop.

Otherwise it will probably not see any use

Quote from: matthulhu;768285This is not an universal truth about roleplaying. The idea of immersion isn't even approached in early D&D texts, so anyone just picking up first edition and reading it would be hard pressed to even know immersion was the supposed goal of the game, as opposed to the numerous admonitions to play intelligently and carefully. There is nothing stopping an Intelligence 3 character's player from solving a dungeon puzzle (thank God) although by "immersion" standards that player is not even attempting to emulate his character. All this talk of immersion sounds like the preamble to a Vampire LARP rulebook.

You have a lot of reading to do, and hopefully, a lot more playing in front of you.

Roleplaying, as a term, existed before this hobby.  The term is defined by an IC perspective, in psychological, theraputic, acting, and then in our games.  The metagame perspective you speak of, i.e, and specifically your example, of having a 3 int problem solve a puzzle their character would not is actually a perfect description of gaming without roleplaying.

All this talk of immersion has been going on for decades and can often exist with intelligent gaming. But Roleplaying, as a definition, means playing the role from the perspective of the character.  In rulebooks, the exact example of solving a 'dungeon problem' with OOC is derided as metagaming and note roleplaying.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768228no.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.  The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

No.  Thank god for parallel processing.  

Metagaming is not the opposite of roleplaying.  But you're not even using the word right.  Metagaming is the act of transcending the rules by using external factors to influence play.  For instance, if I knew that the DM loved cats and I was speaking in character that some party antagonist was seen killing cats the other night in order to get some mechanical advantage over the antagonist based upon the DM's out-of-game feelings about cats - THAT is megagaming.  What you're talking about is simply "gaming".

Ok, now that that's dealt with, let's talk about the actual gaming aspect of inspiration, one more thing to consider during an encounter...

Human beings are capable of thinking about multiple things at one time.  I can imagine myself as a sinister, callous wizard with a long black beard in red robes while, as a player, desiring my fireball singe the bastards our party is up against.  I can do all that while remembering how many dice I have to roll, optimum positioning, possible dangers, that I haven't eaten this morning, that my character just had deer jerky an hour ago, and that later in the evening I'd like good sex and a cookie.  

I can do all that in the space of a couple seconds while still feeling like I am that wizard.  In fact, advanced levels of immersion can only be had by game mechanics like a Vampire's need/use of blood.  Take that away and you're either playing Batman or Gothic Punk: the RPG.  Does blood as a resource within the game require players to think about their blood pool from both an as-character perspective, as well as, an out-of-character perspective?  Yes!  That's roleplaying.  Part game, part simulation, part storytelling and all roleplaying.

The kind of immersion you're talking about sounds more like LARP camping out in the woods behind the renaissance fair, looking for steam tunnels and demanding that everyone in the party wear period-authentic underwear.  To me, that's not roleplaying.  That's akin to civil war reenactments or something.

VS

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it does.  Or at least, in terms of roleplaying games.
and as if this is a new conversation or has not been gone over ad infinitum...spend some time doing some reading, you'll find a lot about this. Let me just do a little search engine work..



"In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

"Meta-gaming is roughly the antonym of immersion, in which decisions are made from the stance of a character or the conception of a game."
 http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Meta-gaming

Very specifically, since we are talking about D&D, in the 3.0 DMG it is described as the use of OOC information to solve IC situations...Out of Character being the operative idea.  

"Metagame (link / top)
 Technically, any game-related concerns that are not part of the game itself, such as out-of-character or rules discussion, but more often used in reference to a player who uses knowledge not possessed by their PC to their advantage (in which case it has a negative connotation)."
http://www.gnomestew.com/tools-for-gms/gnomenclature-a-diminutive-rpg-glossary/#m

"Metagame - 1) Things discussed about the rules by the GM and players as opposed to things happening in-game (by the characters). 2) To calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows."
http://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/RPG_Glossary#M

And.This explains it pretty well, from just up thread.

Quote from: CRKruege

Quote from: LordVreegno.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible. That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible. The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

In other words, every single RPG session includes time X divided into...
A: Amount of time spent thinking in character
B: Amount of time spent thinking out of character

Every metagame decision increases B and decreases A.

The percentage of A to B that seems fun will be subjective and different to each person.
Whether a certain decision is A or B is not subjective.

Now, you can go on thinking and believing whatever your little heart desires, VS.   Your definition is not wrong, it is merely incomplete and missing, as is obvious by our quick search, the most important part; the understanding of 'in-character' vs. 'out-of-character' information.

I also like this particular thread on stack exchange, as they don't just have definitions or pronouncements from designers; readers and contributors vote on the answers...and here...
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7500/suggestions-for-decreasing-metagaming-and-increasing-player-immersion
(and by the way, note, even in the title, the dichotomy between metagaming and immersion)

QuoteYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

I thought about using that line for you in my last post but then realized I was no longer 12.

Those definitions (except for maybe this, "2) To calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows." which would be a wrong understanding of the word if taken to an extreme, only serve to strengthen my argument and weaken yours.  Read them again... slowly this time.

Also here are some more...

QuoteMetagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

QuoteIn role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

If you can claim that "metagaming" is everything besides believing for a split second that you are actually that character, then pretty much every single aspect of roleplaying is "metagaming"... which it, of course, isn't.  


VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;768568I thought about using that line for you in my last post but then realized I was no longer 12.

Those definitions (except for maybe this, "2) To calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows." which would be a wrong understanding of the word if taken to an extreme, only serve to strengthen my argument and weaken yours.  Read them again... slowly this time.

Also here are some more...

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming[/urlFrom%20here:%20%20[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

If you can claim that "metagaming" is everything besides believing for a split second that you are actually that character, then pretty much every single aspect of roleplaying is "metagaming"... which it, of course, isn't.  


VS

Right.  I took the definitions for a roleplaying game, you took the ones for non-RPGS.  Since this is a thread for RPGs, I think we know which is more pertinent.  
Cherub, I'm sorry.  I took the time to read your blog, and I get it...
but in an RPG, it's IC vs OOC knowledge.  
I didn't look hard, I found those in the first 2 pages of looking.  ANd I quoted stack exchange (as you never could) since it defines an accepted definition, as opposed to looking hard for one generalized enough not to include the specialized RPG mindset.

from the 3.0 DMG, page 13, already mentioned (I was posting from work before)...
"Any time the players base their character's actions on logic that depends on the fact that they are playing a game, they are using metagame thinking.  This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief".

Not to be mean, since you mention age 12 (1978 for me, when I'd been already playing D&D for 2 years), I understand when you get older, say 15 or 16, you'll understand the value of recognizing when you are plain old wrong and moving on.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768588Not to be mean, since you mention age 12 (1978 for me, when I'd been already playing D&D for 2 years), I understand when you get older, say 15 or 16, you'll understand the value of recognizing when you are plain old wrong and moving on.

The guy worships Cthulhu and once cast a spell on rpg.net, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768622The guy worships Cthulhu and once cast a spell on rpg.net, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And Pundit believes in magic, Jibba believes that Dnd is some real life simulator and you act like you actually played with Gary and OG in 1978, and I love football at least as much as rpg's. What's your point?

Quote from: Marleycat;768632And Pundit believes in magic, Jibba believes that Dnd is some real life simulator and you act like you actually played with Gary and OG in 1978, and I love football at least as much as rpg's. What's your point?

In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768649In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

No, because it seems you've suddenly decided to take up Ben's mantle I've decided to stay around somewhat because you've lost your sense of humor and dare I say it....some perspective. I could be wrong but it's unlikely truthfully. It's sad watching you literally calcify about certain things but it happens to everyone at some point.

If I'd taken up Ben's mantle I'd form a company and start putting out RPG product.

As far as calling bullshit on the liars who claim "One-True-Wayism" when all someone is doing is drawing a distinction, I've always done that, always will do it.

This whole "there's no such thing as association/disassociation", "metagame mechanics don't exist", "RPGs are a literary art form", etc. are all bullshit memes that come around every once in a while with a new round of forumgoers, and some of the older members join in to toss their little barbs.  Some of us just stand there and say "Nope".

Then it all dies down.

The current state of the forums are proof that 5e is succeeding on bringing players of all editions to the forums.  Most of them though come from a place where their special game gets unchallenged due to mod enforcement, so there will be an adjusting period, and then people will get along as best they can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768649In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

Like I asked Ben years ago. If I take AD&D and I remove demi-human level limits and replace with XP multipliers, add a vitality/wounds mechanism with rapid recovery of vitality, tweak priests, avoid dungeons, remove multiple attacks for fighters vs 0 level foes and forbid multiclassing am I still playing D&D?
If no then yes its been decades. If what you end up with is still D&D then well .... well about 1/2 a decade :D.

D&D's strength was its simplicity and flexibility to me. So I always go back to an iteration of it because it lets you do so much (some people disagree of course) provided you are prepared to take a scapel to it and fix it up some.

Actually, the point is that I'm using specific roleplaying metagame definitions and LordVreeg is still wrong.  My religion can be ridiculed in another thread.  Metagaming isn't using actual game rules to play the game. All you have to do is look at the root words "meta" and "game".  

Meta means after or beyond.  Game means game.  

Again, I'll state for the record that if "metagaming" means everything that come between you and pretending that you're actually your character without any distraction or reference to the game not being the real world, then 90% of every RPG would be "metagaming".  That's simply not the case.

However, if you do wish to use that personal definition, that's fine.  Go right ahead.  Just know that your argument about inspiration/backgrounds being metagaming is like complaining that there's ice contaminating your water.  

VS

Quote from: CRKrueger;768657If I'd taken up Ben's mantle I'd form a company and start putting out RPG product.

As far as calling bullshit on the liars who claim "One-True-Wayism" when all someone is doing is drawing a distinction, I've always done that, always will do it.

This whole "there's no such thing as association/disassociation", "metagame mechanics don't exist", "RPGs are a literary art form", etc. are all bullshit memes that come around every once in a while with a new round of forumgoers, and some of the older members join in to toss their little barbs.  Some of us just stand there and say "Nope".

Then it all dies down.

The current state of the forums are proof that 5e is succeeding on bringing players of all editions to the forums.  Most of them though come from a place where their special game gets unchallenged due to mod enforcement, so there will be an adjusting period, and then people will get along as best they can.

We do tend to get a little pissy when new folk come around and think their little anecdotal experience negates the history of the industry and tens of thousands of posts, just on this one little site.

And it is, as said, a good thing in general when people are being brought together to look at a new edition and see what it has to offer.  I may not be thrilled with this particular somewhat dissociated mechanic, but it is actually nice to see this edition stretch a bit and offer options for different types of game.

N

Quote from: CRKrueger;768657If I'd taken up Ben's mantle I'd form a company and start putting out RPG product.

As far as calling bullshit on the liars who claim "One-True-Wayism" when all someone is doing is drawing a distinction, I've always done that, always will do it.

This whole "there's no such thing as association/disassociation", "metagame mechanics don't exist", "RPGs are a literary art form", etc. are all bullshit memes that come around every once in a while with a new round of forumgoers, and some of the older members join in to toss their little barbs.  Some of us just stand there and say "Nope".

Then it all dies down.

The current state of the forums are proof that 5e is succeeding on bringing players of all editions to the forums.  Most of them though come from a place where their special game gets unchallenged due to mod enforcement, so there will be an adjusting period, and then people will get along as best they can.

I hope so because honestly I'd rather hear about how and someone made 4e work for them outside combat at this point a game I really dislike then argue about rules that are going to be modified individually anyway. In my experience I haven't seen any 2 Dnd games run under the same rules yet it works.

Quote from: Marleycat;768709N

I hope so because honestly I'd rather hear about how and someone made 4e work for them outside combat...

Okay. In 4E I run the stuff outside of combat exactly as I did for 30 years in AD&D - through roleplaying, exploration, and problem-solving. In the campaign I'm running right now we average two combats per five hour session, of about 60 minutes each. So 2 hours of combat, 3 hours of other stuff. It's no harder to do that with 4E than with any other edition.

Did you use skills or just ability checks? For example I tend to use ability checks more often then skills unless it's highly specialized or I'm wanting multiple checks like research or magic rituals on the order of a large summoning or rite.  That comes from running White Wolf games frequently.

Quote from: Marleycat;768728Did you use skills or just ability checks?

Skills. But rolelplaying and problem-solving without rolling dice mostly.

Quote from: Haffrung;768732Skills. But rolelplaying and problem-solving without rolling dice mostly.

So what's the big issue with skill challenges then? It sounds like you run things like normal.

Quote from: Marleycat;768736So what's the big issue with skill challenges then? It sounds like you run things like normal.

I've used them a few times. They work fine.

Quote from: Haffrung;768747I've used them a few times. They work fine.

I should have known it was mostly a non-issue made up by people that don't actually play the game. It's something I never understood given they made complete sense to me just from a readthru.

Quote from: Marleycat;768753I should have known it was mostly a non-issue made up by people that don't actually play the game. It's something I never understood given they made complete sense to me just from a readthru.

I use the system written up in the Essentials DMG, and then improvise and freelance as needed.

Quote from: Marleycat;768736So what's the big issue with skill challenges then? It sounds like you run things like normal.

I did. I found skill challenges to be kind of pointless dice fests. I never needed them when I was running 4E.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;768915I did. I found skill challenges to be kind of pointless dice fests. I never needed them when I was running 4E.

Interesting.... but why? Was it too obvious? I ask because it's normal in White Wolf to roll an ability check and roleplay it and then role a secondary check and roleplay it.....

I think language should be a tool of communication: just define your terms and move on. It's rarely a sign of intellectual honesty to argue with the other person's definition when they are just trying to capture a concept in a short phrase. (The main exceptions are when the concept behind the word is self-contradictory or poorly-defined--such as "Narrativism", or when the word is deliberately used either in the service of formal equivocation or rhetorical baggage as in "GM Fiat".)

Anyway CRK, LV, and Phillip have done the heavy lifting here. I'll just give my opinion of the rule as written in the Basic PDF. To me it comes off as a half-hearted gloss of Burning Wheel Artha. (Or maybe Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday, except TSoY reads as a fun game while BW is pretty dreary in my limited experience.) The important elements, that can't be separated in the overall evaluation, are how you earn Inspiration, how you spend it, and what it does for you. The specifics matter. For example there are games that give you a "benny" each time you go up a level and that's it. The effect is entirely different from handing out incentives to good roleplay. You never have to think about how to earn them, only whether to spend them, and their rarity encourages being very stingy. (The game I'm thinking of also has you succeed automatically when you use them, which makes them doubly valuable.)

In the RAW I'm pretty put off by the dancing monkey effect. BUT there's another side to "paying people for RPing" which is "compensating people for doing what they want to do, even when that thing isn't exactly prudent". It seems to me that it can be a lubricant that allows a looser style of play, which can be fun.

However the "banking" aspect is pretty lousy because it does encourage thinking out of character. Lars is right to turn this into a a Rule of Cool/Passions--really most like The Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes or traits in Dogs in the Vineyard or Aspects or whatever they are in Hero Wars/HQ: if it applies to the situation, you get the bonus immediately but you can't bank it. For flaws by contrast I'd allow players to bank the benny (possibly as a distinct type of benefit, let's say "fortune") however I'd explicitly tell the DM it's their solemn duty to mess with the character or not to give the award. You can't indulge a flaw just for show--it has to entail real consequences.

Of course using Inspiration/Fortune at all is going to produce a rather different game and I'm not saying one ought to use them in any form. But while the RAW doesn't appeal to me at all, a few tweaks turn it into something I could see using for some games.

I had been contemplating grafting Fate Aspects onto D&D, so Inspiration made me point and go 'aaaah!'

One of my big motivations was to make Alignment more meaningful... have alignment let you DO something special because of it.

Being limited and then inspired by your alignment... sounds like a great way to make it relevant.

huh? I was going through my old Dragon magazines and in issue 118 I thin was a article for introducing "hero" points onto the game. Which allowed you a +5%/+1 on a roll later per point spent.

3.5e also has Action Points
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm

(I was thinking of hooking that to Fate-like Aspects, including alignment)

The srd lacks the dancing monkey element, which is by far the major point of contention here.

Dunno about the Dragon article--how did you earn the points?

Quote from: Arminius;769051Dunno about the Dragon article--how did you earn the points?

'The DM may award hero points to a well played character who adheres to the aims of class and alignment.'

If that's the whole of it, I think the way it's phrased would be more palatable to the people that have trouble with the Basic rule as written. In the Dragon article it sounds like an occasional award that might be given at the same time as XP, at the end of an adventure or session. That softens the effect of "hunting" for Inspiration by means of token actions, because you'd have to sustain the role-play. It's also less specific--you just have to act your class/alignment, not hit a defined "story note".

But the Basic RAW also has language that implies there may be multiple "systems" or guidelines hidden away in the DMG; it doesn't promise that you're entitled to Inspiration. It may even be just explaining the concept in case it gets used--like the various mentions of Feats.

Reading through it (which I admit is bit of a struggle), it is a bit more complex.

Basically each character has a pool of Hero Points between zero and their character level. Remember this is AD&D so that's going to be a low number. It gets a bit more complex if you are multi-classed.

The Hero Points are earned by role play as above, and can be spent on either your own dice rolls or an opponent's. Each point spent moves the die by one pip in a direction of your choice. Modifying Damage dice is allowed.

The interesting thing is once spent, you lose the Hero Point until the next 'game day'. So you only actually have to role play once per level to get a full quota. you do not have to keep role playing to refresh them.

You had a pool of hero points you could spend.
You could have a max equal to your level.
You got them for good RPing and adhering to alignment and character.
The points were viable ONLY for that game day. Use em or lose em.
Villains and monsters could get hero points too.
The use of a point had to be declared before the roll.
Each point spent was a +1 or +5% on the roll. to hit, initiative, saves, charm, reactions, whatever. Preferrably with a reasoning for this little surge of activity.

The points could be used to give you a bonus in your roll or a penalty on an enemy roll. Sound familliar?

Quote from: jadrax;769071Reading through it (which I admit is bit of a struggle), it is a bit more complex.

Basically each character has a pool of Hero Points between zero and their character level. Remember this is AD&D so that's going to be a low number. It gets a bit more complex if you are multi-classed.

The Hero Points are earned by role play as above, and can be spent on either your own dice rolls or an opponent's. Each point spent moves the die by one pip in a direction of your choice. Modifying Damage dice is allowed.

The interesting thing is once spent, you lose the Hero Point until the next 'game day'. So you only actually have to role play once per level to get a full quota. you do not have to keep role playing to refresh them.

Reads pretty simple to me really.
Earn points for RPing. Max of your level, or if multiclassing, Level + 1/2 top secondary.
Points can be used for a +1/+5% on a roll.
Unused points are lost at the end of the day and you need to RP to get more.

One of you is saying the points refresh automatically. The other is saying you have to earn them fresh each day. (That makes more sense but you never know.) "Good roleplaying" is much broader than than hitting a keyword for a Scooby Snack.

It's a Dragon article. Not the D&D rules. It resembles something used in other, much more niche games such as James Bond 007, which deliberately aimed at a certain genre experience.

Quote from: Arminius;769166One of you is saying the points refresh automatically. The other is saying you have to earn them fresh each day. (That makes more sense but you never know.) "Good roleplaying" is much broader than than hitting a keyword for a Scooby Snack.

It's a Dragon article. Not the D&D rules. It resembles something used in other, much more niche games such as James Bond 007, which deliberately aimed at a certain genre experience.

Oh but a Dragon Article proves the mechanic was present and always used in AD&D didn't you know?

Quote from: Arminius;769166One of you is saying the points refresh automatically. The other is saying you have to earn them fresh each day. (That makes more sense but you never know.) "Good roleplaying" is much broader than than hitting a keyword for a Scooby Snack.

Its possible I misinterpreted what it meant by 'renew your points' but if that's the case, all the stuff about fining you half your points if you role playing badly makes little sense if your going to lose them all at midnight anyway.

Frankly, I don't rate the system as very good any way you read it.

The thing about these meta-systems is they often read as distasteful invitations to go through the motions for points, arm-twist players to force them to roleplay, or indulge in special-snowflake wallowing, but then

* The advocates say it's nothing like that, AND
* Regardless of what anyone says, they end up being like that sometimes, but not always. Sometimes the meta-system is houseruled, sometimes it's played within the letter, at least technically. I honestly don't think there's a strong correlation.

To me this means that the rules are often written badly. This is a case in point.

Note, I think a well-written rule doesn't necessarily produce the same effect everywhere. Look at the long/short rest rule--that's pretty nicely done.

Dragon was a wellspring of experimental ideas. Some worked, some didnt.

Never used the hero points as it was just more bookkeeping. Neet idea and fairly simple really. But wasnt our thing back then.

That issue also had Arena combat, Jousting, Fairs, Archery Tourneys for the competition theme that issue.

Also there was an article on Pain, the discussed hero point system, and playing characters in the stone age.

The pain + wounds article was interesting too. The more you suffered the more debilitated you got.

This though lead to what we now-a-days call the death spiral unfortunately.

I should think by Dragon 118 the death spiral was already old hat. It goes back at least to Melee (Metagaming, 1977), where a good hit would put you off-balance, a heavy one would knock you prone, and if you were down to your last few hit points, you were woozy.

Anyway somehow I've read the article and the method proposed was: you'd get a maximum pool of LEVEL hero points per refresh period (day, session, week, whatever). Your actual pool would be recalculated from time to time by the GM using the same performance rating system used for training in AD&D. So the pool could go up or down, but it did indeed refresh automatically instead of being an on-the-spot reward.

Quote from: Arminius;769384Anyway somehow I've read the article and the method proposed was: you'd get a maximum pool of LEVEL hero points per refresh period (day, session, week, whatever). Your actual pool would be recalculated from time to time by the GM using the same performance rating system used for training in AD&D. So the pool could go up or down, but it did indeed refresh automatically instead of being an on-the-spot reward.

We obviously read it very differently.

It specifically says

They must be earned through play and awarded by the GM.
They do not carry over from day to day.
They have a maximum based on level.
If they are all expended, they cannot be renewed until the next day.  It does not say they are renewed every day.

There's nothing in there about auto-renewal at all.

Every Hero Point must be awarded by the GM, clearly pointed out.

So, I'm kicking ass and taking names, and I amass the maximum number of Hero Points for the day, and then spend them all that same day kicking more ass and taking more names.

Next day I start all over again, having to earn the points up to my maximum, rinse repeat daily.  If I spend the day putzing around town shopping, no Hero Points.

Simple.

EDIT: I also hate you both for making me look in a Dragon that had Wormy in it.  (sigh) Rest in Peace Dave.

..And going back, or circling back, as we say...

I don't need any mechanics that move players away from the IC perspective.  But I am one game table and one opinion.  If it brings others to the table, or makes other games better, good for the hobby.  
I could care less if it was in a Dragon mag, or when it came in.  I'm happier with a game with more options for different game styles.

Well I was reading quickly and trying to pick out the key points. But there's a passage on using the class-performance rating system from the training rules. Honestly I think my time is better spent taking in the recycling bins so I'm going to bow out as gracefully as I can manage on this tangent.

Quote from: Marleycat;768753I should have known it was mostly a non-issue made up by people that don't actually play the game. It's something I never understood given they made complete sense to me just from a readthru.

Maybe cancer is mostly a "non-issue made up by people who don't have it," but for those who do experience it, it can be a pretty big issue.

When I played 4e, "skill" challenges were B O R I N G. Why? Because the players were nothing but dice rollers. If I had wanted to play Craps, I'd have wanted something more engaging!

... relating like or dislike of game mechanics to having _cancer_?

Fuck you.

Many nerdgasms to ya. Fact is, a problem is a real problem -- not "just made up" -- regardless of how many people it affects. Belittling real people to the extent of denying their existence is not just dishonest but egregious.

Distraction based on the content of an analogy: informal fallacy.

Take it back to RPGnet. Oh wait, you can't.

I couldn't tell anyone to go fuck themselves on rpg.net. It's a virtue of this forum that when people have climbed up their own assholes and pitched a tent you can actually say so.

To put the skill challenge issue in perspective, consider 4e fans' response to a rules set that seems to reduce combat to nothing but "roll to hit, roll for damage."

I've actually encountered that in 4e in boxed-in slugging matches. Those took an hour to resolve, vs. a fraction of an hour in old D&D. The old game was designed to get such affairs over with quickly; 4e to prolong fights that were expected to provide plenty of opportunity for players to explore interesting tactics -- not just to be dice-rolling robots.

On to the actual point, where I actually agree with Phillip (just without the utterly crazy analogy):

Quote from: Marleycat;768753I should have known it was mostly a non-issue made up by people that don't actually play the game. It's something I never understood given they made complete sense to me just from a readthru.

From the vast consensus I've seen, the original rules don't actually work very well. There's a lack of guidance, and the numbers don't work well.

There's a corrected set that came out later but, again, not a lot of actual guidance.

Personally, I like the idea of skill challenges, but then I start imagining Fate, which handles 'content agnosticism' a lot better.

I think for skill challenges to work really well it'd be good to have some toothy 'consequences' system to incentivize risk and reward, even if some risk and reward is 'you find the backdoor to the dungeon' or other high level stuff.

Otherwise, it's a step up from 3e's 'you can totally do noncombat scenes, too. Somehow'
But only a small step.

Paizo has a 'performance combat' system that can be tinkered with to provide other noncombat conflicts.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/performanceCombat.html

Quote from: CRKrueger;769167Oh but a Dragon Article proves the mechanic was present and always used in AD&D didn't you know?

Yeah, there's that schtick. What the "new school" does not get is that people like me think the more the merrier as far as modular options and local variations. What's annoying is the attitude of shoving something into the game as The Official Rule, the more so the more it really is tightly integrated with lots of other components so that hacking is a drag.

AD&D wasn't really much of a system, although of course nothing was perfectly isolated from everything else. The "tournament rules" talk had more effect than the reality of a consolidated and edited OD&D hodgepodge. The "renaissance" of an attitude more really appropriate to that -- signs of which I saw back in the early 2e period -- is at odds with stuff that actually is what Gygax only claimed for his rules set.

So 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?

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?

As with s.c., I'm not about to toss my hat and huzzah over an opportunity -- never mind an "officially official" encouragement -- to replace interesting decision-making with dull dice-rolling.

And there's what I think is the real key to encouraging role-playing: interesting decisions and consequences in the activity itself.

Make the game itself fun, so people want to play it -- just a crazy old-fashioned idea that can't work today?

When I was tinkering with something like Skill Challenges pre-4e, one of my ideas was that players could contribute productive skill checks (which gives a lose framework for anything), or just contribute a particularly interesting/clever idea.

The second part was a good way to get people involved who might not have 'the right skills' and discouraged siloed play (aka the SR Decker problem).

Another idea I toyed with is something like 'the first successful skill check someone contributes is worth double' to encourage involvement and discourage Skill Guy from filling the spotlight.

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 liked it but it obviously needs work. You don't want to use it all the time (and I don't think the rules say you have to) but as written it sounds like it would work well for something like getting through a swamp.

What needs to be recognized is that situations differ based on a whether participation is optional and whether it's better to have more people or a group that's more skilled on average.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

Quote from: Phillip;770034The 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."

A lot of "new-school" stuff is lessons that are re-learned by people that came into the hobby during/through the heavy railroading/adventure path mindset.

Quote from: Phillip;770034The 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.

Yeah, I kinda agree there.  I'm not sure of where that's a Fate thing, either.

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'

That's a really good example because it shows how the rule could work sometimes and not work sometimes. Fundamentally the rule says: if you can choose who rolls, only have your single best person roll.

But in an active search of an area, maybe you don't have time for one person to do everything. Still, finding what you're looking for is a matter of the person assigned to zone X succeeding on their roll. If I did this totally abstractly I'd pick one person at random and make them roll. In effect the chance of success is the average of the abilities. Which isn't the same chance as the group action RAW.

In a passive search (think moving cautiously while avoiding booby traps) you have no choice but to include everyone. But to what extent do extra eyes help the group and to what extent do extra bodies (springers of traps, distracters of eyes) hurt the group?

Quote from: Phillip;770034The 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.

That's the ... point.

Sometimes people get sucked into a mechanistic trap of 'well, it's kind of relevant and cool that X statue is linked to Y religious symbol. I guess I have to make everyone have a knowledge (religion) check. Probably 1-3 people will succeed.'

OOOR... just go fuck it, and say 'Joe and Beth realize that the statue has religious significance...'

As Robiswrong points out, a lot of this is to help people who have been playing with big mechanical simulation kinda approaches to remember (or learn) that hey, they don't have to do it that way for everything.

If these points seem really obvious or not a problem for you... great! You go on being awesome.

Just, you know, not everyone is as awesome and enlightened.

I include my thoughts on inspiration in this play report from last night's demonstrations:  http://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2014/07/d-5e-starter-set-success.html

For those who don't want to bother with clicking or reading the entire blog post, here's an excerpt...

QuoteInspiration, in conjunction with all the background elements, is awesome... a godsend.  It made roleplaying (wanting to speak in character and develop relationships, as well as, reasons for engaging in particular activities) easier.  If you think about it, roleplaying a character in front of strangers can be awkward or even nerve-wracking for introverts (about 50% of the table).  Inspiration as a game mechanic makes it less weird because now there's an in-game reason for mentioning your character's delusions of becoming king one day or asking socially inept questions around the campfire (So... how often do you masturbate?).  I've roleplayed with enough strangers and noobs in my life to know that the roleplaying that took place last night just does not happen with prior editions of D&D, Pathfinder, or 90% of the tabletop RPGs out there.  Even V:tM could do with something like inspiration!

VS

Quote from: Will;770013I'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...

what you speak about is the balancing of the game.  Each iteration of the game has been balanced around a different part of the game.  0D&D was balanced around the idea of exploration.  AD&D was balanced around the idea of the Campaign.  You are correct that as the game was recreate, Combat more and more became where the roles were balanced.  
It is the meta reason I want bolt-on modules, that change the balancing points.

I'm really hoping for good ability to tweak magic item balance (I hate +1 swords, I want sword of the gyre, which lets you spin past enemies. Or swords that make you really thin on command. Or...)

Also hoping for a good skill challenge system for lots of other stuff when desired.