Incoherence in games?

[Lessa]

My GM also forgot about backgrounds & inspiration entirely in the couple 5e games we had.

I wonder if it's due to the rule being kinda peripheral to what the game is about? Same thing happens to us in The Sprawl, where characters have "personal directives" which are supposed to trigger XP gains when PCs put their personal goals/flaws/drama above the mission. But in the heat of the mission, nobody remembers that shit. XD

If such mechanics were more "in your face" or better tied to the system like TRoS Beliefs or Pendragon Passions or something, perhaps it would work better?

 

[Ladybird]

Yeah that’s how I interpret the mechanic, but every other DM I’ve had only allows advantage from spending Inspiration. It’s curious. My complaint is with persistent human error, not the core rules. I just wonder why this happens so frequently (anecdotally).

I think this may be a fault of the game and how it has trained GM's to STICK to the RULES. 5e isn't really about "sure, why not" rulings even though it's kinda flirting with them with the background traits.

Groups coming to it from other systems may interpret them in a more free manner.

 

[Brock Savage]

I think this may be a fault of the game and how it has trained GM's to STICK to the RULES. 5e isn't really about "sure, why not" rulings even though it's kinda flirting with them with the background traits.

My time on Reddit's DM Academy convinced me that there are a lot of people out there running games who have not read the rules. These are the people who only read the magic item section of the DMG and skip everything else; they don't know fundamentals like what an adventuring day means or how to build encounters.

 

[Lessa]

My time on Reddit's DM Academy convinced me that there are a lot of people out there running games who have not read the rules. These are the people who only read the magic item section of the DMG and skip everything else; they don't know fundamentals like what an adventuring day means or how to build encounters.

The good ol' "I already know how to GM and don't need no friggin book to teach me" (to then whine how the game didn't work ).

 

[TJS]

The books aren't exactly well organised. It took me a while to stumble across the fact that the DMG has retained a kind of half-hearted version of the 3rd edition diplomacy rules* buried in what looks like a GMing advice section.

*I actually liked what the Diplomacy rules were trying to do - and think they're much better than the basic Persuasion roll that seems to be what they have morphed into - but they suffered from the fact that the only people who actually seemed to read the rules were the optimisers hell bent on breaking them. (I don't think I ever played in a 3.X game where the GM used the rules as written).

 

[Necrozius]

I think this may be a fault of the game and how it has trained GM's to STICK to the RULES. 5e isn't really about "sure, why not" rulings even though it's kinda flirting with them with the background traits.

My rulings often got "overruled" by players, who complained that off-the-cuff advantage duplicated the effects of a Feat (some may remember my earlier thread complaining about the horseback charge incident).

So I don't allow Feats anymore when I'm the DM. I'll dish out advantage whenever I damn well please, thank you very much. I want the PCs to do cool shit.

 

[Necrozius]

Next game session, I'm going to put aside my character sheet entirely (except when I have to check stats, etc.) and just TELL the DM what I'm doing whenever there is a scene change.

Example: "Alright, so you've been walking in the woods for a while. An hour later... make a Perception check!" Hold your horses, poindexter. Set the scene first. We've been suddenly tripping on wires and getting ambushed so frequently you'd think we'd be more careful by now.

 

[TJS]

A lot of reddit advice threads seem to be full of newish GMs afraid they'll break the game - and operating on the assumption that everything in the game is perfectly balanced and calibrated.

And Advantage is a big boost that may feel like it almost guarantees success.
So I imagine there may be some reluctance to mess with DCs and the like by giving out Advantage where it's not specifically called for.

 

[TJS]

My rulings often got "overruled" by players, who complained that off-the-cuff advantage duplicated the effects of a Feat (some may remember my earlier thread complaining about the horseback charge incident).

So I don't allow Feats anymore when I'm the DM. I'll dish out advantage whenever I damn well please, thank you very much. I want the PCs to do cool shit.

This is one reason I prefer Boons and Banes from Shadow of a Demon Lord and will likely port them over to 5E if I run it again. Being able to stack easily makes this sort of thing simple If someone already has a Boon you can still just give them another one. It means you only need one way to give out bonuses, and that people that already have one still get rewarded for being clever. This also means you don't have to worry about a situational bonus you give invalidating someone's character choice.

 

[CRKrueger]

My GM also forgot about backgrounds & inspiration entirely in the couple 5e games we had.

I wonder if it's due to the rule being kinda peripheral to what the game is about? Same thing happens to us in The Sprawl, where characters have "personal directives" which are supposed to trigger XP gains when PCs put their personal goals/flaws/drama above the mission. But in the heat of the mission, nobody remembers that shit. XD

If such mechanics were more "in your face" or better tied to the system like TRoS Beliefs or Pendragon Passions or something, perhaps it would work better?

Well...yeah. If, for some reason, you’re actually looking for OOC mechanics to be used and meaningful, the more OOC they are, the better.

“We were so into the roleplaying, we forgot all the cool meta shit.” I’d say you found a good system for you. Feature not bug.

 

[Necrozius]

“We were so into the roleplaying, we forgot all the cool meta shit.” I’d say you found a good system for you. Feature not bug.

Except when the DM makes all dice rolls difficult and frequent, without any bonus modifiers or adjustments based on character expertise or clever thinking.

If you have the same odds of disarming a trap with or without clever thinking and planning, then why bother playing smart at all? "ooh that was a very clever way of spotting and overcoming that obstacle! Well done, now make a straight up saving throw. You failed? Oh well tough shit and fuck you ahahahahah"

Once again, old school brutalism might make your privates tingle, but it's a huge turn off for me.

 

[Necrozius]

I brought up my concern with frequent, and often consecutive, Perception checks with my group. I suggested using Passive Perception more often, and even linked them to the Alexandrian article on "rolling to failure".

Their reactions have been:

"Passive perception is just a vague sense that something's up: active perception is to find what it is"

"The DM can do what they want with giving out clues about what we perceive"

"we'll talk about it at the next session"

Needless to say, I'm dropping it.

 

[Lessa]

Well...yeah. If, for some reason, you’re actually looking for OOC mechanics to be used and meaningful, the more OOC they are, the better.

“We were so into the roleplaying, we forgot all the cool meta shit.” I’d say you found a good system for you. Feature not bug.

We forget the "cool meta shit" because it's badly implemented (or at least, not that well implemented). I bet if Inspiration in 5e gave the Fighter a boost for stabbing the goblin in the belly and twisting the blade inside, people would never forget it. But as a vague boost based on your background or upbringing or something (ohhh my troubled childhood in the north wastes with my blind grandma ohhh) which has nothing to do with you role in a combat & exploration team in first place - the point of the game from a mechanical POV - well, it's easy to see why people forget it.

I've played Pendragon. I didn't forget my passions or virtues. Why? Well, I think it's because the game puts that crap front and center, by making it drive the story (or be changed by it) while following on Arthur steps. So when my lord ask me to find his missing girl, I look at my traits and see "Valorous" and I can't deny the request. And when I find out she is on Saxon lands, I immediately mind my "Hates Saxons" passion and the best way to use it. And when I have the Saxon on the tip of my blade, I usually remember that I'm also "Merciful" (and the GM too! while grinning behind the screen, the bastard ).

I don't know, but I think the problem with 5e Inspiration is more or less related to that. If I didn't hit the nail, I'm close.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Backgrounds and Inspiration are just so badly disconnected from the rest of the engine that is 5e that it feels like its from a different game entirely.

I'll admit that when I'm running the game I forget about it too. that is why I switched to using Hero Point style mechanics instead and just removed the whole background system from my game. (I mean, it doesn't help that the background features are just badly badly designed. Most of them amount to "you can find lodging" which is marginally useful, then they throw in Outlander which has a feature that is balls insane good if you play an exploration style game).

Instead of a background, I just let people take two skill proficiencies of their choice + 2 tool/language proficiencies and be done with it.

 

[Necrozius]

If the backgrounds were more directly tied to the setting, like Icons are in 13th Age, I think we could have something.

Like choose a background that identifies a major enemy or emnity (kingdom, tribe or, hell, an entire race), one that is a super positive alliance with such a group and another that’s an inherent or natural affinity with a certain environment or situation.

Something like that.

Example: my character is wanted for murder in the Kingdom of Alamar, is close friends with the plains tribes of orcs, and is super competent and at-ease in cold, bright outdoorsy situations.

 

[Chris Brady]

If the backgrounds were more directly tied to the setting, like Icons are in 13th Age, I think we could have something.

Like choose a background that identifies a major enemy or emnity (kingdom, tribe or, hell, an entire race), one that is a super positive alliance with such a group and another that’s an inherent or natural affinity with a certain environment or situation.

Something like that.

Example: my character is wanted for murder in the Kingdom of Alamar, is close friends with the plains tribes of orcs, and is super competent and at-ease in cold, bright outdoorsy situations.

That limits the game severely, in my opinion. You're an ex-City Guard from cosmopolitan Waterdeep, and you go to the Dwarf-Human city of Mirabar. Congrats, most of your background is useless.

 

[Necrozius]

That limits the game severely, in my opinion. You're an ex-City Guard from cosmopolitan Waterdeep, and you go to the Dwarf-Human city of Mirabar. Congrats, most of your background is useless.

I'm badly paraphrasing how it works in 13th Age. The DM works in these Icons once characters are completed. Or, they don't, but they'd be dickish not to.

IN my defense, a player could choose to be an illiterate barbarian in a campaign about political intrigue, or a sailor/pirate in a desert-themed setting. I still stand by my suggestion, with the caveat that players and DMs aren't being FUCKS.

In fact, whenever I make such suggestions, assume that's what I mean. I can't control the variable of human shittyness.

 

[Voros]

I find backgrounds, etc are just there as guides to help newer players with role-playing their character. We use to use the NPC traits table in the 1e DMG for our PCs for the same purpose. Also I found that tying backgrounds to skill checks via the aforementioned optional rule seemed to help keep them in mind for the players.

As to Inspiration, I think a lot of people who are experienced with D&D forget it because it is a new mechanic and people just fall into old habits when playing at the table. I gave my players an Inspiration die they kept on their character sheets and that seemed to work.

That someone would claim Advantage only applies when using Inspiration...it is amazing how many people bitch about 5e and have clearly not bothered to even read the rule set. Also strange when you see people complain online about something (like say healing rates) and when you point out that there are optional rules in the DMG that address it they just ignore that and continue to complain. As if they're chained to the core rules and are incapable of doing anything about it.

 

[Chris Brady]

I'm badly paraphrasing how it works in 13th Age. The DM works in these Icons once characters are completed. Or, they don't, but they'd be dickish not to.

IN my defense, a player could choose to be an illiterate barbarian in a campaign about political intrigue, or a sailor/pirate in a desert-themed setting. I still stand by my suggestion, with the caveat that players and DMs aren't being FUCKS.

In fact, whenever I make such suggestions, assume that's what I mean. I can't control the variable of human shittyness.

So what you're saying here is that for backgrounds to work in D&D, the DM/GM has to work them into the game. What I take from this is that it's up to the DM to make it work then, and the system really doesn't matter beyond making some suggestions.

 

[Necrozius]

So what you're saying here is that for backgrounds to work in D&D, the DM/GM has to work them into the game. What I take from this is that it's up to the DM to make it work then, and the system really doesn't matter beyond making some suggestions.

... come to think of it, yeah, it sure seems like it. Not sure if D&D codifies it otherwise.

Not sure what to do about that. I guess that backgrounds and inspiration are more up to rulings than rules. Each DM will have their own methods.

If I don’t like a particular DM’s style, I guess that I can leave the table and bugger off for all they care.

I stand corrected, then. As you were.

 

[CRKrueger]

Except when the DM makes all dice rolls difficult and frequent, without any bonus modifiers or adjustments based on character expertise or clever thinking.

If you have the same odds of disarming a trap with or without clever thinking and planning, then why bother playing smart at all? "ooh that was a very clever way of spotting and overcoming that obstacle! Well done, now make a straight up saving throw. You failed? Oh well tough shit and fuck you ahahahahah"

Once again, old school brutalism might make your privates tingle, but it's a huge turn off for me.

You may want to reread what he was talking about, and what I was replying to.

It wasn’t the in-game mechanics for modifiers and stuff, it was the personality mechanics and narrative stuff they were ignoring.

 

[CRKrueger]

We forget the "cool meta shit" because it's badly implemented (or at least, not that well implemented). I bet if Inspiration in 5e gave the Fighter a boost for stabbing the goblin in the belly and twisting the blade inside, people would never forget it. But as a vague boost based on your background or upbringing or something (ohhh my troubled childhood in the north wastes with my blind grandma ohhh) which has nothing to do with you role in a combat & exploration team in first place - the point of the game from a mechanical POV - well, it's easy to see why people forget it.

I've played Pendragon. I didn't forget my passions or virtues. Why? Well, I think it's because the game puts that crap front and center, by making it drive the story (or be changed by it) while following on Arthur steps. So when my lord ask me to find his missing girl, I look at my traits and see "Valorous" and I can't deny the request. And when I find out she is on Saxon lands, I immediately mind my "Hates Saxons" passion and the best way to use it. And when I have the Saxon on the tip of my blade, I usually remember that I'm also "Merciful" (and the GM too! while grinning behind the screen, the bastard ).

I don't know, but I think the problem with 5e Inspiration is more or less related to that. If I didn't hit the nail, I'm close.

Interesting. I guess I don’t get why you’d need meta mechanics to be in your face about these things. If roleplaying a character who Hates Saxons, is Valorous and Merciful, I would respond much the same way as if I had these things written down. The only time I thought those really worth while was when competing Passions and Virtues occur (which is a common theme in medieval literature anyway). As reminders of personality or roleplaying enforcements, they’re usually not needed.

I guess I can see the argument that if they’re there, use them.

 

[Toadmaster]

Yeah that’s how I interpret the mechanic, but every other DM I’ve had only allows advantage from spending Inspiration. It’s curious. My complaint is with persistent human error, not the core rules. I just wonder why this happens so frequently (anecdotally).

I wonder if I could get Sly Flourish to do a poll and an article about this phenomenon.

Sounds similar to GURPS / HERO advantage / disadvantage where for some reason many people can't wrap their head around the idea that it isn't worth any points if it isn't actually and advantage / disadvantage.

I frequently see people complaining about these rules when clearly they fail to pay attention to that simple piece.


It would be very easy to take this thread into one on bad GM-ing as that is often closely related to badly written / misinterpreted rules.

 

[AsenRG]

You may want to reread what he was talking about, and what I was replying to.

It wasn’t the in-game mechanics for modifiers and stuff, it was the personality mechanics and narrative stuff they were ignoring.

CRKrueger are you telling us that Pendragon's personality mechanics are OOC? Because that's how I read this post.
Or do you mean that how the characters feel is irrelevant and wouldn't affect their abilities?

 

[Ladybird]

I've played Pendragon. I didn't forget my passions or virtues. Why? Well, I think it's because the game puts that crap front and center, by making it drive the story (or be changed by it) while following on Arthur steps. So when my lord ask me to find his missing girl, I look at my traits and see "Valorous" and I can't deny the request. And when I find out she is on Saxon lands, I immediately mind my "Hates Saxons" passion and the best way to use it. And when I have the Saxon on the tip of my blade, I usually remember that I'm also "Merciful" (and the GM too! while grinning behind the screen, the bastard ).

It also puts them right in front of you in a big space on a (Relatively) uncluttered character sheet with chunky mechanics behind them, whereas the equivalent D&D mechanic is hidden in the corner of a very cluttered sheet as well as being vague.

 

[Lessa]

Great insight, Ladybird. The place those things occupy in the character sheet is an indicative of how important they are.

Interesting. I guess I don’t get why you’d need meta mechanics to be in your face about these things. If roleplaying a character who Hates Saxons, is Valorous and Merciful, I would respond much the same way as if I had these things written down. The only time I thought those really worth while was when competing Passions and Virtues occur (which is a common theme in medieval literature anyway). As reminders of personality or roleplaying enforcements, they’re usually not needed.

Come on Krugs, you know those are not just "reminders" for method actors wanabees, they're the fucking game. Saying "I don't need metacrap to remind me how to role-play" is like saying "I don't need a Sanity meter to say how I behave in CoC" or "an alignment to say how I behave in D&D". Tracking that shit and seeing how it causes all sorts of interesting situations is the point of Pendragon.

It's completely different from Shadowrun "20 questions", which are there for method actors wanabees (probably, the authors never explain) as the actual game don't have any use for it.

 

[Necrozius]

It also puts them right in front of you in a big space on a (Relatively) uncluttered character sheet with chunky mechanics behind them, whereas the equivalent D&D mechanic is hidden in the corner of a very cluttered sheet as well as being vague.

That's an excellent point. I've seen fan-made character sheets that DO place those traits on the first page, but officially WotC only seems to promote them via blogs, tweets etc... . In other words, nothing formal for newbies to grok.

 

[CRKrueger]

CRKrueger are you telling us that Pendragon's personality mechanics are OOC? Because that's how I read this post.
Or do you mean that how the characters feel is irrelevant and wouldn't affect their abilities?

The part you quoted? He was talking about 5e.

 

[TalespinnerEU]

On backgrounds in the system:
I think your character's identity and backgrounds are expressed mechanically in the toolkit you choose. Your class, your selection of skills, your specializations. As such, I don't think having a background should convey certain bonuses, since that background is already expressed in these factors.
If you play a guard who grew up apprenticed to a carpenter, why not instead invest some of your character mechanisms in a carpentry-related skill?

Being able to choose from a wide variety of backgrounds with mechanical impact is nice on the surface, but when we really come down to it, isn't it really just picking another class/skill kit? Isn't that exactly what classes/skillsets are supposed to do? The only reason they exist at all is because backgrounds are relevant to the character, but less so to adventuring. I believe backgrounds can be expressed mechanically in a holistic approach; they needn't be a tacked-on extra miniclass.
Then again: Maybe DnD isn't the best system to look for holistic character creation, since everything within the system is so thematically linear. Maybe tacking on a miniclass is necessary to express character identity.
At the same time, doing so can also cause a thematic clash. Say you are a wizard with high intelligence, but low strength. Should the 'logger' background really be available to you? Doesn't the fact that you are a logger clash with that low strength stat?

Just some musings.

(I remember playing a merchant in DnD 3.5. Opted for Rogue, without any investment in Stealth and Pickpocket skills, and Charisma was my primary stat, with Dexterity being the second highest. I dedicated most of my skill points to diplomacy, appraise and forgery (and took Open Lock and Disable Device purely for usefulness to the party). The DM didn't really get what I was going for, and so tried to introduce this character in an archetypical 'rogue steals things' situation; it wasn't easy to explain that 'no, this isn't how the party is going to meet my character, because my character doesn't pick people's pockets; he's a merchant, not a thief. No, the mercantile aspect isn't just a cover. I'm not offering my goods to these Beastmen just so I can distract them while I rob them; this is earnest and honest trade...' The DnD archetype paradigm can be difficult to break through.)

 

[CRKrueger]

Personality mechanics are almost always OOC. Acting isn’t roleplaying, but an analogy is the director stopping you and telling you to act differently. You’re obviously not acting when you’re receiving instruction from the director. Likewise, when the GM tells you your character has a mental condition thanks to Yog Sothery, you’re talking about your character, by definition OOC.

In Pendragon, only extremes of traits need to be checked, but checking against the traits is determining how the character will act, not acting as the character. If I’m deciding to seduce a Lady, I’m roleplaying when I make that choice. If the dice are telling me my lustful nature requires I seduce the Lady, then I am OOC receiving stage direction, and then I go on to roleplay from there.

Which is fine, because Pendragon is a Genre RPG, meant to emulate Le Morte d’Arthur and other medieval chivalric romances, with all the drama, tragedy and comedy they can contain.

Personally, I’d rather be roleplaying in the moment and decide for myself whether the Traits of Just and Hate Saxons wins out over Forgiving and Merciful by feeling the conflict. But, getting a Trait fumble and having to deal with something you regret doing and have to answer or atone does make for great stories in the Arthurian tradition.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Saying that insanity mechanics from COC are out of character and aren't roleplaying is implying that mental issues are a choice for the character. Yeah, no.

When you are roleplaying a character you are making the choices they would make in the situation. They don't CHOOSE to lose sanity, it is something that happens to them. Choosing for your character to go insane or not isn't "roleplaying", it's hilariously OOC.

Basically: We aren't 100% in charge of our own emotions and mental faculties, so trying to claim roleplaying is only when you are given 100% control of your character is idiotic.

 

[Ladybird]

Great insight, Ladybird. The place those things occupy in the character sheet is an indicative of how important they are.

Not quite what I meant.

Placing them where they are makes them visible and obvious to the player; they're much less likely to forget, during a game, that the traits exist and can be used in various ways, whereas something hidden away in a small part of the sheet, the dreaded second page, or in the rulebook, is relatively easy to ignore or forget.

That's the true genius of something like WFRP3, the presentation, putting information players need and can use right in front of them.

 

[Edgewise]

Personality mechanics are almost always OOC. Acting isn’t roleplaying, but an analogy is the director stopping you and telling you to act differently.

So is charm person OOC? This feels like a pretty expansive definition. Fine if you like it but it starts to seem less useful to me.

 

[Vargold]

Ah, this turn in the discussion takes me right back to r.g.f.advocacy.

 

[Baulderstone]

Personality mechanics are almost always OOC. Acting isn’t roleplaying, but an analogy is the director stopping you and telling you to act differently. You’re obviously not acting when you’re receiving instruction from the director. Likewise, when the GM tells you your character has a mental condition thanks to Yog Sothery, you’re talking about your character, by definition OOC.

I can understand how personality mechanics are at odds with your desire for pure immersion, but I don't think that makes them an OOC mechanic. I think of OOC character mechanics as things like adding details to a scene. My character's passions and fears are entirely a part of my character and something that they are aware of.

The reaction produced by some personality/fear mechanics can potentially be more "in-character" than the decisions made by the player sitting calmly at the table. I see "in character" behavior as when my character behaves appropriate to their established personality, which doesn't necessarily line up with my own personality and emotions.

 

[Necrozius]

This might lead to the ultimate debate over HP. Is that OOC? As in, our heroes are usually aware of how roughed up or tired out they are... unless you can't easily define HP abstraction.

Besides, the whole "HP is how tired out you are from conflict" gets weird when we introduce Fatigue and insanity mechanics. Damn it.

 

[Baulderstone]

This might lead to the ultimate debate over HP. Is that OOC? As in, our heroes are usually aware of how roughed up or tired out they are... unless you can't easily define HP abstraction.

Besides, the whole "HP is how tired out you are from conflict" gets weird when we introduce Fatigue and insanity mechanics. Damn it.

Unknown Armies had HP tracked secretly by the GM, precisely because it is hard to gauge exactly how close to death you are in a fight.

Getting back to personality mechanics, I have found that the Sanity mechanic in CoC can be a little intrusive at times, taking a big dramatic moment and turning it into a lot of dice-rolling. If everyone is really into a scene, it can be better to defer the Sanity roll until things calm down and people have time to reflect.

I don't find that to be the case with passion-style mechanics. If anything, invoking my hatred of an enemy before making a roll only helps me with involvement.

 

[Necrozius]

If everyone is really into a scene, it can be better to defer the Sanity roll until things calm down and people have time to reflect.

I really like this idea. I need to polish up on my DM note-taking for such post-scene events or "off-boarding".

 

[Chris Brady]

Besides, the whole "HP is how tired out you are from conflict" gets weird when we introduce Fatigue and insanity mechanics. Damn it.

It got weird the moment they put in Cure Wounds spells...

 

[Ladybird]

This might lead to the ultimate debate over HP. Is that OOC? As in, our heroes are usually aware of how roughed up or tired out they are... unless you can't easily define HP abstraction.

Besides, the whole "HP is how tired out you are from conflict" gets weird when we introduce Fatigue and insanity mechanics. Damn it.

And damage-on-a-miss mechanics, and even poison... maybe Fate's vague "stress" description is the way to go.