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:

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:

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: