"A rule you constantly forget to use isn't a good rule"

[Shipyard Locked]

I was on another forum where a discussion of D&D 5e's 'inspiration' rules came up in a tangent. Several people pointed out that they constantly forgot to use the inspiration rules, that they felt tacked on. One poster went as far as to say (paraphrasing), "A rule you constantly forget to use isn't a good rule."

I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but I must admit I've certainly seen many subsystems in many games that felt tacked on or vestigial, especially in this age of trying to streamline and accelerate play. I don't use the inspiration rules in D&D 5e myself, but that was a conscious choice because I didn't think the game needed them. Meanwhile, in the classic WoD games I've been running, it's a struggle to remember to use the Appearance and Wits attributes because their functions are easy to unconsciously fold into other attributes.

What do you think?

 

[Baeraad]

I agree. Any rule that doesn't feel integrated is likely to get forgotten.

As for WoD, I've actually never had any trouble making use of the Wits attribute (it's for how good you are at improvising - a subject that tends to come up a lot, in my experience), but I agree that Appearance is likely to go unused unless you really make a conscious effort to include it. For that matter, Charisma and Manipulation seems like so obviously a matter of approach that you might as well just let the player use whichever one they want.

 

[Baulderstone]

I can see cases where this is true, but many where it is not. The first time I run system, I am likely to forget all kinds of things and focus more on keeping the game moving than getting the rules precisely right. Whether a rule gets forgotten or not might not have any bearing on how well it would have worked if I applied it.

There is also the fact that a rule that is always forgotten is an untested rule at your table. A system may have a new and different rule that is genuinely fun at the table. However, I haven't discovered that if I always forget to apply it. If I go by the rule that a forgotten rule isn't a good rule, I will never discover that.

On the other hand, if I do use the rule from time to time, but then begin to forget about it and don't miss it, yeah, it's probably not a good rule.

 

[PolarBlues]

I agree in general terms with one caveat. A lot of GMs go on auto-pilot and end up running games in largely the same way. It's understandable, if you've GMed for a while you develop your way of doing things and there is a lot going on during a game the GM has to pay attention to. However it does mean some GMs may miss out on features found in a particular system that simply out of habit.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think that it can definitely be said that it isn't useful for your table if you keep forgetting it. On the other hand, someone at another table might be taking full advantage of it.

That said, the inspiration rules for 5e definitely feel like they are forgotten more often than not in games I've played in or seen run or seen talked about.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I was on another forum where a discussion of D&D 5e's 'inspiration' rules came up in a tangent. Several people pointed out that they constantly forgot to use the inspiration rules, that they felt tacked on. One poster went as far as to say (paraphrasing), "A rule you constantly forget to use isn't a good rule."

I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but I must admit I've certainly seen many subsystems in many games that felt tacked on or vestigial, especially in this age of trying to streamline and accelerate play. I don't use the inspiration rules in D&D 5e myself, but that was a conscious choice because I didn't think the game needed them. Meanwhile, in the classic WoD games I've been running, it's a struggle to remember to use the Appearance and Wits attributes because their functions are easy to unconsciously fold into other attributes.

What do you think?

Probably some truth to that. But I certainly wouldn't classify Inspiration in such a way. We used it often (not currently in a 5e game right now, hence the past tense).

 

[Skarg]

It's a truism, which like most truisms, expresses some insight and sounds clever and right to many people, but is only true when it's true, and is often not true, leading to many people incorrectly applying the truism to everything in inappropriate ways.

A rule you constantly forget to rule has an issue with you forgetting it.

For players who remember, use, and appreciate the rule, the same rule may be a good rule.

 

[Black Vulmea]

A rule you constantly forget to rule has an issue with you forgetting it.

A rule you constantly forget is a rule which doesn't mesh with your playstyle.

 

[finarvyn]

Probably some truth to that. But I certainly wouldn't classify Inspiration in such a way. We used it often (not currently in a 5e game right now, hence the past tense).

Pretty much what I was going to say. I agree with the basic premise of the original post (that a rule constantly forgotten is pretty much pointless) but I don't classify 5E's inspiration to fit in that category. I agree that players often forget to use inspiration, but that is due to their immersion in the game rather than the fact that it's not a useful rule to use. In other words, this is a case where players forgetting could be a GOOD thing, as they are paying more attention to the story than the rules. Still a good rule.

 

[Baulderstone]

One issue with this statement, to give an example, is that I am pretty good about giving about bennies when I play Savage Worlds, but a friend of mine always forgets when he runs it. Are bennies a good rule because I remember or a bad rule because my friend forgets?

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Bear with me here, but the word that keeps coming back to my mind on this subject is 'ergonomics'.

You know, the fine art of designing tools so that they feel comfortable, convenient, and second-nature to the user.

For instance, when you're designing a video game controller, you want to make all the buttons equally accessible in a split second from a neutral hand position. In this metaphor, a rule you forget all the time without impacting the game is comparable to an awkwardly positioned button that activates an optional feature. Sure, you can use it, and some people train to use it, but it doesn't come naturally to the majority and they muddle through just fine without it.

I am pretty good about giving about bennies when I play Savage Worlds, but a friend of mine always forgets when he runs it.

This example baffles me because, unlike Inspiration, bennies are pretty essential to the proper flow of Savage Worlds. How does your friend keep forgetting without getting tarred and feathered by his group?

 

[Baulderstone]

This example baffles me because, unlike Inspiration, bennies are pretty essential to the proper flow of Savage Worlds. How does your friend keep forgetting without getting tarred and feathered by his group?

He's just a really good GM. I worked in his game store many years ago, which means that we have played dozens upon dozens of systems together, and he is the kind of GM where things are fun regardless of the system. Two of the most fun campaigns I played in the '90s were the Indiana Jones Masterbook and the Chameleon Eclectic Babylon 5 game. Neither of those are anyone's favorite system, but he managed to make them awesome.

I'd say a lot of it is that his games are heavy on character interaction, scheming and negotiation, and he likes things gritty. Savage Worlds with only your starting bennies is pretty gritty.

 

[carpocratian]

This example baffles me because, unlike Inspiration, bennies are pretty essential to the proper flow of Savage Worlds. How does your friend keep forgetting without getting tarred and feathered by his group?

They aren't essential. There really isn't a "proper flow" to any game. Whatever works with a particular GM and group is the right way for them to do it.

I use bennies when I run Savage Worlds games, but I could just as easily drop them without any issues.

 

[Justin Alexander]

What do you think?

Generally, yes, but:

1. It only applies as a demographic principle, not an anecdotal one. The fact that virtually no one used the full weapon speed rules from AD&D1 is significant. The fact that Bob Whoever doesn't remember to use difficult terrain modifiers to movement isn't a meaningful statement about the system. (Although Bob Whoever might want to consider what's happening at his own table and diagnose from there.)

2. that I've seen groups who forget to use rules because they play all of their RPGs as if they were the same game with different set dressing, and by god they are going to force these mechanical square pegs into these round holes and anything that doesn't directly map to the mechanics in their usual system of choice won't be used! (Sometimes that's also a conscious choice on their part. Either way.)

I was on another forum where a discussion of D&D 5e's 'inspiration' rules came up in a tangent. Several people pointed out that they constantly forgot to use the inspiration rules, that they felt tacked on. One poster went as far as to say (paraphrasing), "A rule you constantly forget to use isn't a good rule."

The other thing about Inspiration is that it's also an example of a rule that's too complicated for people to want to use it. (And I've found that, in general, this is not about the absolute level of complexity in the rules; it's about the ratio of complexity to value.) Conceptually, the Inspiration mechanics say, "When your character is acting in a way that is consistent with their personality traits, they gain advantage." But for some reason, that's not the mechanic: The mechanic is this bizarre thing where you do a thing consistent with your personality traits and then the GM gives you a dissociated token that you can later spend on some completely unrelated check that has nothing to do with your personality traits.

This example baffles me because, unlike Inspiration, bennies are pretty essential to the proper flow of Savage Worlds. How does your friend keep forgetting without getting tarred and feathered by his group?

It's one of the reasons I won't run Savage Worlds. Thinking about rewarding arbitraty metagame bennies mid-session just isn't part of my thought process as a GM, and I find it completely disruptive to the flow of the game when I do. When dealing with similar issues in other systems I'll just tell the players they need to call out the bennie conditions to me. (Drivers in Trail of Cthulhu, for example.)

 

[Baeraad]

They aren't essential. There really isn't a "proper flow" to any game. Whatever works with a particular GM and group is the right way for them to do it.

I use bennies when I run Savage Worlds games, but I could just as easily drop them without any issues.

This. That whole "bennies should flow like water" idea is one that the fanbase has invented on its own with minimal encouragement from the actual rulebook. Your bennies get refilled at the start of each session and that's plenty as long as you're frugal with them - the GM definitely does not have to keep topping them up during play just so the players never need to fail at anything.

And if you think that I sound like a crotchety old bastard on that topic, don't get me started on how I feel about the new Shaken rules!

 

[carpocratian]

This. That whole "bennies should flow like water" idea is one that the fanbase has invented on its own with minimal encouragement from the actual rulebook. Your bennies get refilled at the start of each session and that's plenty as long as you're frugal with them - the GM definitely does not have to keep topping them up during play just so the players never need to fail at anything.

And if you think that I sound like a crotchety old bastard on that topic, don't get me started on how I feel about the new Shaken rules!

My players often forgot to use their bennies, to be honest. I never even give myself the GM's bennies for "wild card" npcs.

I haven't read the new Shaken rules. Overall, though, I don't see a compelling reason to buy Savage Worlds 2nd edition.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

This. That whole "bennies should flow like water" idea is one that the fanbase has invented on its own with minimal encouragement from the actual rulebook. Your bennies get refilled at the start of each session and that's plenty as long as you're frugal with them - the GM definitely does not have to keep topping them up during play just so the players never need to fail at anything.

And if you think that I sound like a crotchety old bastard on that topic, don't get me started on how I feel about the new Shaken rules!

Man, wait until you see all the bennies changes in the new edition.

Since it was spoiled on a live stream show, I don't think I'll get in trouble for saying anything, but they can now be used to reroll damage by default, rather than requiring an Edge, get a new initiative card, regain Power Points, or "influence the game" (which will be really divisive depending on how one feels about such mechanics. They also made Joker's Wild (everyone gets a benny on a Joker) a standard rule instead of a Setting Rule.

My players often forgot to use their bennies, to be honest. I never even give myself the GM's bennies for "wild card" npcs.

I haven't read the new Shaken rules. Overall, though, I don't see a compelling reason to buy Savage Worlds 2nd edition.

Those were made available online for free about two or three years ago, well before Adventure Edition was even openly discussed. To your second point: I didn't see a compelling reason to, either, until I read them, but everyone needs to do what they wanna do.

 

[Baeraad]

Man, wait until you see all the bennies changes in the new edition.

Since it was spoiled on a live stream show, I don't think I'll get in trouble for saying anything, but they can now be used to reroll damage by default, rather than requiring an Edge, get a new initiative card, regain Power Points, or "influence the game" (which will be really divisive depending on how one feels about such mechanics. They also made Joker's Wild (everyone gets a benny on a Joker) a standard rule instead of a Setting Rule.

... nah, all that I can live with.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

... nah, all that I can live with.

Oh, I just think it’ll up Bennie consumption is all.

 

[Baeraad]

Oh, I just think it’ll up Bennie consumption is all.

They can consume all they want. Doesn't mean I'm giving'em any more!

 

[Consonant Dude]

I like the general principle of the thread title but it's first and foremost easier to remember a rule (good or bad) if it is:

1, Clearly written and simple
2. Pushed forward in the rule book
3. Not buried in a fucking huge pile of other rules (also good and/or bad)
4. Rewarding

Despite my nitpicking, I love the OP and thinking about stuff like that, and I love the nitpicking of others on this thread. I think a lot about a related topic these days: what makes a good rule?

 

[carpocratian]

they can now be used to reroll damage by default, rather than requiring an Edge, get a new initiative card, regain Power Points, or "influence the game"

"Influence the game" in what way?

 

[Tommy Brownell]

"Influence the game" in what way?

Finding a clue, finding a mundane item, pushing an unimportant NPC into being more agreeable. That sort of thing.

 

[carpocratian]

Finding a clue, finding a mundane item, pushing an unimportant NPC into being more agreeable. That sort of thing.

Gotcha. It sounded a bit more ominous than that