# Inspiration From Nat 20 Will Bog Down The Game



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat. 

I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables. 

If you get Inspiration from a natural 20 for any type of check, and you have reasons to use Inspiration more (both things stated by Crawford), then one unintended consequence is an incentive for players to be rolling a lot more d20s. Because it's just a 5% chance of rolling a natural 20, so the more d20s you roll, the more often you will achieve that natural 20 to generate more inspiration. 

If your players right now don't check every door they encounter first to listen to see what they can hear behind it (Perception) then to check for traps (often Investigation), they will have an incentive to do that more often now. If they don't try to identify every religious symbol on a wall (Religion) or mural they encounter (History) or every tune they hear (Performance) or medicinal herb they find (Medicine) or which way is north (Survival) and on and on, they have that incentive to make those checks more often now. And most of these have very little risk involved in rolling a natural 1 and failing them. 

And some of that might be fun of course and engage the players in the setting more. But I suspect a lot of it will be a waste of time. 

And you might be thinking "But my players wouldn't do that." Great. Some players will. And their benefitting from it will incentivize others do to it more as well. 

I just don't think a natural 20 generating Inspiration on an out-of-combat skill check is a good idea for the time management of a game. There should be some limitations placed on this concept, and I'd suggest the limitation should be that you're making the check under some sort of pressure where failure can have some meaningful cost in terms of your PC resources or enemy threats, etc. is required for a natural 20 to trigger Inspiration granting. 

What do you guys think? Is this concern unwarranted? Is there a better way to deal with it? Am I reading these playtest rules wrong?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Is this concern unwarranted?



In a word: yes.

Not because it's illogical, but because it's profoundly unlikely to happen IRL. It's not about "my group would never do that", it's that players in general won't, because it's boring and not fun. Further, it requires the DM to essentially collaborate, because RAW no roll is made unless the DM says to make the roll.

It's possible that, for like, one session, some groups will behave in a slightly silly way. But they'll get bored. It's not exciting or fun. And the DM will probably just let them make less rolls.

So it'll pass.


----------



## Composer99 (Aug 22, 2022)

PCs only make a check if the rules say they do or if the DM says they do. Most of the activities you're describing are things that, as far as I'm aware, the DM decides whether or not the PCs make a check.

So the way to avoid too many rolls is for the DM to remember not to call for checks for every thing the PCs do. That could mean the PCs automatically do the thing, automatically fail to do the thing, or if it's not worth a die roll, the DM uses their passive check totals to decide if they do the thing or not.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 22, 2022)

The game is already too easy to need to worry about using Inspiration. 5.5/6E will make it even easier for players.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> PCs only make a check if the rules say they do or if the DM says they do. Most of the activities you're describing are things that, as far as I'm aware, the DM decides whether or not the PCs make a check.




Well, yes and no. If a PC checks a door for traps, a DM doesn't have to call for a roll if there is no trap. But if the DM chooses to do that, then when there is a trap, you're immediately signaling to the PCs there is a trap when you do call for a roll. 

Similar with a lot of these things. If identifying how someone was killed is a story element which can have meaning for the players and the one time they try on a body you suddenly call for a roll, they know without rolling the answer is important and are likely to feel like they want to act accordingly. 

Some of the examples can be eliminated. Your Dwarf wants to know what way is North? Just tell them, without a check. Your druid wants to know what a medicinal herb is? Just tell them without a check. 

But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward. And I think there should be rules to address this - specifically, a rule requiring negative ramifications for a failed check or a loss of a resource (like an action you need for something else) for it to count as a potential trigger for Inspiration.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward.



This is like half the truth.

Yes, players are inventive. But players are also fun-oriented and easily bored. They're not going to be interested in elaborately "running the clock" to get a couple more dice of mostly-useless Inspiration, not session after session. For one session maybe.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward. And I think there should be rules to address this - specifically, a rule requiring negative ramifications for a failed check or a loss of a resource (like an action you need for something else) for it to count as a potential trigger for Inspiration.



Early in the days of 5e (back when players assumed it would be slightly challenging), I had players constantly fishing for Inspiration: "Oh, my Bond is this, so I did that for Inspiration," etc. 
I put an end to that, just like I'd put an end to players rolling dice just for a chance to "win" Inspiration.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> The game is already too easy to need to worry about using Inspiration. 5.5/6E will make it even easier for players.




The same rule ended crits on spells, ended crits applying to smites, and ended crits applying to sneak attack, and ended crits on a host of other added bonus dice to damage. All while increasing the use of foes using recharge abilities, which frequently are deadlier and are more often area attacks or movement based attacks. So I disagree with you claiming this rule in itself is making the game easier for players. It's changing things, but not necessarily to the "easy" end of the spectrum.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat.
> 
> I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables.
> 
> ...



I think that the GM calls for rolls and not players. So the amount that players roll will be gated by how often the GM calls for a roll.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I think that the GM calls for rolls and not players. So the amount that players roll will be gated by how often the GM calls for a roll.




 It puts the DM in a more difficult position for a lot of kinds of checks. If you don't call for a roll when a player wants to check something, you're communicating it's either so simple or so complicated they cannot succeed or fail, or you're communicating to your players the question isn't important. IE there is no trap, or something useful connected to identifying something, etc..

So if a player says they check a chest for traps, and you don't call for a roll, then you're communicating there is no trap on that chest. You're communicating something you don't necessarily want the players to know by responding with no check. So you're more inclined to allow a check each time, so that when it does matter your players have an opportunity to detect it.

So yes of course it's the DMs call, but that doesn't really address the issue. It just highlights which person has to deal with the issue.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> The same rule ended crits on spells, ended crits applying to smites, and ended crits applying to sneak attack, and ended crits on a host of other added bonus dice to damage. All while increasing the use of foes using recharge abilities, which frequently are deadlier and are more often area attacks or movement based attacks. So I disagree with you claiming this rule in itself is making the game easier for players. It's changing things, but not necessarily to the "easy" end of the spectrum.



Unless you have access to more playtest material than I do, I haven't seen any examples of new, improved, or expanded recharge abilities. They did not discuss any new ones in the video previews (just said dragon's breath attacks are a recharge abilities). In fact, I haven't seen it stated officially that there will be new ones.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It puts the DM in a more difficult position for a lot of kinds of checks. If you don't call for a roll when a player wants to check something, you're communicating it's either so simple or so complicated they cannot succeed or fail, or you're communicating to your players the question isn't important. IE there is no trap, or something useful connected to identifying something, etc..
> 
> So if a player says they check a chest for traps, and you don't call for a roll, then you're communicating there is no trap on that chest. You're communicating something you don't necessarily want the players to know by responding with no check. So you're more inclined to allow a check each time, so that when it does matter your players have an opportunity to detect it.
> 
> So yes of course it's the DMs call, but that doesn't really address the issue. It just highlights which person has to deal with the issue.



I'm struggling to see what the issue is or how this puts the GM in a position anymore difficult than before.


----------



## payn (Aug 22, 2022)

Im not worried about it. I do hope, however, they add a lot more to inspiration than roll with advantage or reroll.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 22, 2022)

It could be balanced by something bad happening on a natural 1, maybe?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Unless you have access to more playtest material than I do, I haven't seen any examples of new, improved, or expanded recharge abilities. They did not discuss any new ones in the video previews (just said dragon's breath attacks are a recharge abilities). In fact, I haven't seen it stated officially that there will be new ones.




You're right that was merely implied by Crawford saying that's what the monsters get. We shall see, but I think it's a fair assumption.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm struggling to see what the issue is or how this puts the GM in a position anymore difficult than before.




Because before they didn't likely have players checking for secret doors in every room, and for traps at every door, for example?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 22, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> It could be balanced by something bad happening on a natural 1, maybe?




Yes. Or just state that it has to have a meaningful risk of failure for the players such that they would suffer an actual harm, like to their resources or from challenges, if they fail.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Aug 22, 2022)

I really wish they’d stop trying to make inspiration happen. I’m not a fan of meta game currency like Fate Points, XP in Cypher, or Inspiration in DnD as I feel they break the flow of the game in the ways OP describes. I know some people like it, but I’d really rather not have yet another resource to track.


----------



## Bupp (Aug 22, 2022)

I like the idea of gaining inspiration on a nat 1 instead. Gaining it on a nat 20 feels like "win more".


----------



## payn (Aug 22, 2022)

SakanaSensei said:


> I really wish they’d stop trying to make inspiration happen. I’m not a fan of meta game currency like Fate Points, XP in Cypher, or Inspiration in DnD as I feel they break the flow of the game in the ways OP describes. I know some people like it, but I’d really rather not have yet another resource to track.



I love it, but yes I hear you. If they do make it a more involved system, I hope its something folks can skip without impact to play.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 22, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> You're right that was merely implied by Crawford saying that's what the monsters get. We shall see, but I think it's a fair assumption.



He didn't mention if it was all monsters, most monsters, some monsters or what. Or how effective they'd be. Or what you'd need to roll to recharge them (like on a 5-6 on a 1d6, if a Critical recharges them, or if they recharge when bloodied).  
But they did make pretty certain what they were taking away from the monsters without giving us anything to test in its absence. 
They shouldn't have even addressed it was a thing until they had something ready to try out with it.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 23, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Because before they didn't likely have players checking for secret doors in every room, and for traps at every door, for example?



IMO, checking for traps or secret doors is something the DM should roll for the players anyway. How can you know you failed to find something which may or may not be there in the first place? And if the DM is rolling, no one gets Inspiration for Nat 20's.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 23, 2022)

I wouldn't be too concerned about it. There seem to be plenty of ways to gain inspiration even in that small playtest. Advantage for a single roll also isn't like super crucial, especially given the changes to critical hits.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> IMO, checking for traps or secret doors is something the DM should roll for the players anyway. How can you know you failed to find something which may or may not be there in the first place? And if the DM is rolling, no one gets Inspiration for Nat 20's.



There is no rule I am aware of which says rolls made based on player's skill checks don't trigger inspiration depending on which person happens to be rolling it. The need to keep the result private isn't the same as it not being a Test roll made by the PC.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I wouldn't be too concerned about it. There seem to be plenty of ways to gain inspiration even in that small playtest. Advantage for a single roll also isn't like super crucial, especially given the changes to critical hits.



It's the advantage to Saving Throws, including death saves, initiative, and concentration checks, which most concerns me.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Players don't declare rolls in 5e, they declare actions.  The DM decides if a roll is warranted.

Granted, I play with some people who can't get out of the pre-5e mindset, and just can't stop themselves from saying, "I roll Perception..." or "I roll Persuasion..." before they've even described what they are doing.

Maybe an extra benefit of the new rule is an incentive to break players of this habit.


----------



## payn (Aug 23, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's the advantage to Saving Throws, including death saves, initiative, and concentration checks, which most concerns me.



They can only bank one at a time. How many natty 20's get rolled a session?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> IMO, checking for traps or secret doors is something the DM should roll for the players anyway. How can you know you failed to find something which may or may not be there in the first place? And if the DM is rolling, no one gets Inspiration for Nat 20's.




But think of the huge incentive to somehow get yourself to a passive Perception of 20!  Free inspiration with every 5' square!


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

payn said:


> They can only bank one at a time. How many natty 20's get rolled a session?




I mean, that's the heart of the issue right? If they're only 1 in 20, but valuable, then players will naturally try to work to get more d20s rolled to increase their odds. Which can slow the game down if they're seeking Tests where they wouldn't have before.


----------



## payn (Aug 23, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I mean, that's the heart of the issue right? If they're only 1 in 20, but valuable, then players will naturally try to work to get more d20s rolled to increase their odds. Which can slow the game down if they're seeking Tests where they wouldn't have before.



Well, if they start asking to roll knowledge for weather, I'll just tell them its raining.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 23, 2022)

Retreater said:


> The game is already too easy






The difficulty level of D&D is entirely in the DM's control.

If a battle is going too easy, the door to the room slams open and reinforcements run in.

If the PCs are getting completely destroyed due to DM error, a bunch of the NPCs have lower hit points than average.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 23, 2022)

WotC should change it to be inspiration on a Natural 1.


----------



## payn (Aug 23, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> WotC should change it to be inspiration on a Natural 1.



Why not both?


----------



## Retreater (Aug 23, 2022)

payn said:


> Why not both?



Why not every natural number from 1-20? Always inspired.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 23, 2022)

I thought of this. As an informal rule, you could disallow check spamming, or say that it only happens on a consequential or meaningful check.

But it is a classic case of not being an issue at most tables, but maybe an issue at enough (and really just 1 or 2 players at those tables) to be a potential issue.


----------



## Shiroiken (Aug 23, 2022)

payn said:


> They can only bank one at a time. How many natty 20's get rolled a session?



One thing I hate about RAW inspiration (both current and 1D&D) is that you can share them. If you already have inspiration, either from an earlier roll or being a human, you can just toss it to another PC. The idea of it being a party resource is stupid IMO.



Sir Brennen said:


> IMO, checking for traps or secret doors is something the DM should roll for the players anyway. How can you know you failed to find something which may or may not be there in the first place? And if the DM is rolling, no one gets Inspiration for Nat 20's.



Rolling checks against Passive scores is the way to go. That way the PC isn't rolling anything and can't gain inspiration.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Yes, players are inventive. But players are also fun-oriented and easily bored. They're not going to be interested in elaborately "running the clock" to get a couple more dice of mostly-useless Inspiration, not session after session. For one session maybe.



Your players aren't all players. There are a ton of players who will game the system for every possible benefit, no matter much it sucks for everyone else. We generally call them power gamers or rules lawyers, depending on the form they use. Stop telling other people how "players are" and what they'll do.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I just don't think a natural 20 generating Inspiration on an out-of-combat skill check is a good idea for the time management of a game.






Mistwell said:


> What do you guys think? Is this concern unwarranted? Is there a better way to deal with it? Am I reading these playtest rules wrong?




So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you _think_ it _might_ do.  This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment!  Try it out!  See what happens!


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you _think_ it _might_ do.  This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment!  Try it out!  See what happens!




That's a really insensitive thing to say.  Some of us are way too busy posting on forums to sit around playing games.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Aug 23, 2022)

When Dungeon Masters know that players will have Inspiration more often they will take this into account when designing encounters. Therefore players will, logically, try to increase the percentage of time they have Inspiration to a higher percentage than the DM expected when designing the encounter.  The DM will respond to this, if successful, by ratcheting up his expectations, and thus encounter difficulty, again.
Eventually you will end up with every player trying everything they can to always have Inspiration, to spend Inspiration frequently, and to regain it frequently.

Do you want a game in which players hunt Inspiration as if they were addicts looking for their next fix and willing to do anything to get it?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 23, 2022)

I think if you got it on a 1 instead of a 20, gaining inspiration means you fail miserably before. So you won't be hoping for extra rolls.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 23, 2022)

Pick a fight > roll many d20 > pass Inspiration to allies > everybody has Inspiration.

It sounds a bit like the early suggestion of freely awarding advantage to players who did a good roleplay of what they were doing, which pretty much leads to advantage bloat.

Inspiration on a nat 20 is one of the biggest dealbreakers for me, they'd better present it as an optional rule. In my games I either don't use Inspiration at all, or use it very scarcily (typically only as a consolation prize to a player who purposefully made a sacrifice to save another or to roleplay a flaw of their PC, etc...). It's part of our playstyle. This rule forces everyone to use Inspiration.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you _think_ it _might_ do.  This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment!  Try it out!  See what happens!




Good thought. I think I will.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That's a really insensitive thing to say.  Some of us are way too busy posting on forums to sit around playing games.




I've got two games a week and used to have three which, in theory, will return next season. There's only so many hours I can devote to playing a week with a full time job and family and younger kid


----------



## pnewman (Aug 23, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm struggling to see what the issue is or how this puts the GM in a position anymore difficult than before.



Because it creates a much, much more confrontational system in which any time a DM does not let a player roll for whatever they are doing the player will assume that the DM is deliberately nerfing their power. They will respond in a hostile manner, killing any fun the game had. I'm really not sure that I would ever want to DM a game with these rules unless I was getting paid for it.


----------



## NotAYakk (Aug 23, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat.
> 
> I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables.
> 
> ...



The DM determines when a check is warranted.

They listen at the door.  Ok; you hear nothing.  Or maybe you hear orcs.  Whatever.  They identify a religious symbol.  Seems legit, it is X.

Neither of these really need a roll.

Basically, it means that the DM should only call for a roll *when there are stakes* worth at least a 5% inspiration.  A lot more "DM just gives the players the information they ask for" and less "roll and see if you are holding the idiot ball" would be great for most D&D tables.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something, and it is plausible, just say yes.

If the players ask for their PC to do or know something and it isn't plausible, _think up a risk what a failure would mean_, then get them to roll the dice.

Everything can have a risk.  Listen at the door and fail, and you are convinced the other side is safe, or make a noise when you listen.  Identity a religious symbol and fail, and get the wrong religion with completely incorrect associations that will cause problems later.

As a DM, before calling for a d20 Test, make sure the test matters.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 23, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, the concern is unwarranted, because you don't have to worry about what you _think_ it _might_ do.  This one is ridiculously simple to test for yourself. You can run the experiment!  Try it out!  See what happens!



I'm implementing the inspiration rules effective immediately, myself. If it's a disaster, I'll know pretty soon. My suspicion is it'll be fine, although it should lead to play feeling more heroic, which isn't to everyone's tastes, given the popularity of critical fumbles.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> When Dungeon Masters know that players will have Inspiration more often they will take this into account when designing encounters.




I won’t. There’s just not enough impact to bother with it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> The DM determines when a check is warranted.
> 
> They listen at the door.  Ok; you hear nothing.  Or maybe you hear orcs.  Whatever.  They identify a religious symbol.  Seems legit, it is X.
> 
> ...




We discussed your responses already upthread, with replies. In sum: players will know there is something they need to look out for if you call for a check, under your system. You system defeats the purpose of secret doors, traps, etc. because you're only calling for a check when it is relevant, immediately notifying your players regardless of their roll there is definitely something to find. Otherwise they say "I check the door for traps" and you answer with "No need to roll there is nothing." Which is its own problem if you disallow checks when there isn't anything to find.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 23, 2022)

How about this: if players "attack a chair" so they could make an attack roll, and get a 20, would you give Inspiration? If they constantly swat at ordinary flies with their sword, how about then? Bag of rats scenarios?

No, they shouldn't, because these are inconsequential actions, so don't deserve a significant reward for an outstanding success. They're simply not potentially inspiring actions.

Same with constant searching to metagame a reward. If they get a 20, but there was nothing to find, how is it "inspiring" to find nothing? It was an inconsequential action, as above. And you haven't spoiled or telegraphed anything, because they've already gotten a successful roll.

So if the players are fishing for nat 20s with constantly repeated actions, if the GM even bothers to ask for a roll, then after a couple of un-Inspiring critical rolls, they'll go back to their normal and appropriate usage of such actions. Only rolls which actually move the narrative forward in some way should be rewarded.

Really, the base argument is more effective in pointing out flaws with the whole concept of players making the rolls to find traps and secret doors. Some DMs use the PCs' Passive Perception and make a secret roll against that or roll the player's skill for them in secret. The former would eliminate the whole Natural 20 issue altogether, while the latter would be a DM judgement call, IMO.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> How about this: if players "attack a chair" so they could make an attack roll, and get a 20, would you give Inspiration? If they constantly swat at ordinary flies with their sword, how about then? Bag of rats scenarios?
> 
> No, they shouldn't, because these are inconsequential actions, so don't deserve a significant reward for an outstanding success. They're simply not potentially inspiring actions.
> 
> ...



If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 23, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.



Exactly. But as Mistwell points out, that approach can be problematic when searching for things like secret doors and traps. The PHB mentions using Passive Checks, but also has a sidebar dedicated to Finding Hidden Things, where it says the player makes the Perception check, based on the description of where they're looking. It doesn't really offer advice on handling players who name every single object, in every single room, as something they want to search.

But to me, the fact the players make the roll at all is weird. If you make a roll that obviously, or even just likely, fails then the _player_ knows they failed. How can you know the difference between "failing" to find anything - meaning you find nothing - versus "succeeding" to find nothing?

Getting rid of that weirdness would resolve the issue and probably the Nat 20 abuse question.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 23, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> But to me, the fact the players make the roll at all is weird. If you make a roll that obviously, or even just likely fails, the _player_ knows they failed. How can you know the difference between "failing" to find anything - meaning you find nothing - versus "succeeding" to find nothing?
> 
> Getting rid of that weirdness would resolve the issue and probably the Nat 20 abuse question.




100% agree, which is why I try to train my players that they will never need to randomly search for secret doors. If there’s a secret door to be found they probably will get some kind of hint to look for one, that if they use the hints to look in exactly the right place they won’t have to roll, and that if they haven’t received such a hint it’s a waste of time trying. 

I don’t bother using randomly placed secret doors that might be randomly found.


----------



## Amrûnril (Aug 23, 2022)

I suspect fishing for chances to roll will become marginally more common at a lot of tables, but will only rarely be a serious problem. That said, I really don't see the underlying benefit to this change. There are plenty of other ways the developers could add more inspiration to the game, and I've never felt like a natural 20 somehow needed to give an additional benefit.

My greater worry would be that this change feels like gilding the lily, so to speak. A natural 20 is already the greatest triumph possible, as far as the die-rolling dimension of the game is concerned, and tacking on inspiration could encourage players to think of it as a stopping point on the way to something else, rather than a moment to be savored in and of itself.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2022)

I think this speaks to a larger "problem", which is the scope of skill checks is not that well defined. Now we don't want to be too rigid, but I think some more guidance on this would be great.

For example, put a standard little dungeon in the DMG (like 3-4 rooms), and just walk through it as a big example. Show that perception at the door is meant to cover everything in the room....explain how often to give rogues a check on those traps, show some knowledge check examples of what works (and what probably shouldn't).

An example is worth a million words, and the DMG is a perfect place to show what the designers generally intended for skill check frequency. the DM is always welcome to throw off the guidance and go their own way, but this at least provides a little more "standard experience" without firming shouting, "you must play dnd this way or else"


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 24, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I think this speaks to a larger "problem", which is the scope of skill checks is not that well defined. Now we don't want to be too rigid, but I think some more guidance on this would be great.
> 
> For example, put a standard little dungeon in the DMG (like 3-4 rooms), and just walk through it as a big example. Show that perception at the door is meant to cover everything in the room....explain how often to give rogues a check on those traps, show some knowledge check examples of what works (and what probably shouldn't).
> 
> An example is worth a million words, and the DMG is a perfect place to show what the designers generally intended for skill check frequency. the DM is always welcome to throw off the guidance and go their own way, but this at least provides a little more "standard experience" without firming shouting, "you must play dnd this way or else"



Also, like, put pictures/diagrams, I swear to god, because otherwise no-one ever reads an example (except smart people, which excludes me, as a dingbat). There's nothing worse than see like a couple of pages (or more!) of a detailed example (no matter how well-written) with no pictures. It's so good at making me glaze over. It's pretty bizarre because I can read huge manuals and stuff for work, but examples, oh the glazening.


----------



## pnewman (Aug 26, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.



Chairs are often made out of wood. Wood is AC15. Even if the DM is granting advantage to the attack because chairs do not have eyes and therefore they count as Blinded, a L1 character with a +5 to hit will still miss a chair over 20% of the time. Even a character with a +14 or more to hit would still miss one time in four hundred, because the player could roll two ones. Why would you grant auto-success, unless time did not matter?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 26, 2022)

pnewman said:


> Chairs are often made out of wood. Wood is AC15. Even if the DM is granting advantage to the attack because chairs do not have eyes and therefore they count as Blinded, a L1 character with a +5 to hit will still miss a chair over 20% of the time. Even a character with a +14 or more to hit would still miss one time in four hundred, because the player could roll two ones. Why would you grant auto-success, unless time did not matter?




Because if there's no consequence to failure why roll?

If this is during combat, and smashing the chair would achieve some objective (somebody is tied to it that you want to free?) then I would ask for a roll.  The consequence of failure in that case is that you used your turn, so there's an opportunity cost. 

But, again, if there's no consequence to failure, no roll.  It's how 5e is intended to be played. It's right there in the book.


----------



## CubicsRube (Aug 26, 2022)

I suspect for tables that really find these rules problematic they could easily change the rules to only giving inspiration on an attack roll or a saving throw.

The only "policing" you have to do then is make people roll ability checks to attack a chair, not an attack roll. But really if you have people gaming the system so much that it's interrupting play, that's a people problem, not a rules one.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 26, 2022)

CubicsRube said:


> But really if you have people gaming the system so much that it's interrupting play, that's a people problem, not a rules one.




Worth emphasizing.

The solution to jerks is not to craft rules that prevent people from being jerks, but to not play with jerks.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I mean, that's the heart of the issue right? If they're only 1 in 20, but valuable, then players will naturally try to work to get more d20s rolled to increase their odds. Which can slow the game down if they're seeking Tests where they wouldn't have before.



I don't agree that any large majority of players is going to "naturally" do anything that impedes the flow of the game.  Do your players constantly use Help actions and guidance at each and every skill check at your table, or do they trot those out for only very critical checks that carry significant weight?


----------



## pnewman (Aug 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I don't agree that any large majority of players is going to "naturally" do anything that impedes the flow of the game.  Do your players constantly use Help actions and guidance at each and every skill check at your table, or do they trot those out for only very critical checks that carry significant weight?



In a good game anything the game lets you do is built into the math of the game. Therefore either D&D 5th and One D&D are not good games OR the players are supposed to spam Guidance on every single roll they can and it is already built into the math.
Thus we can logically conclude that, in One D&D, players are meant to spam for Inspiration constantly, almost always have Inspiration, and then apply it to every roll that matters. Thus, when One D&D players loose their Inspiration every morning, they are supposed to immediately start doing trivial things, pressure the DM into leting them roll for them, and all gain Inspiration as soon as they can every morning. One possible way that they could do this, if their DM says No to their rolling for trivial skill checks, is by attacking and killing random Commoners. Doing the math if four PC's each murder 50 Commoners every morning, using attack rolls to do so, then they are almost sure to have each rolled a 20 during the process, gaining Inspiration. Then they just kill the big bad (the other big bad, now that they are all serial mass killers) that same day, spening their Inspiration to make it easier.

Or they could just be an all-human party, but that will never happen....


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

pnewman said:


> In a good game anything the game lets you do is built into the math of the game. Therefore either D&D 5th and One D&D are not good games OR the players are supposed to spam Guidance on every single roll they can and it is already built into the math.
> Thus we can logically conclude that, in One D&D, players are meant to spam for Inspiration constantly, almost always have Inspiration, and then apply it to every roll that matters. Thus, when One D&D players loose their Inspiration every morning, they are supposed to immediately start doing trivial things, pressure the DM into leting them roll for them, and all gain Inspiration as soon as they can every morning. One possible way that they could do this, if their DM says No to their rolling for trivial skill checks, is by attacking and killing random Commoners. Doing the math if four PC's each murder 50 Commoners every morning, using attack rolls to do so, then they are almost sure to have each rolled a 20 during the process, gaining Inspiration. Then they just kill the big bad (the other big bad, now that they are all serial mass killers) that same day, spening their Inspiration to make it easier.
> 
> Or they could just be an all-human party, but that will never happen....




If you goal was "Say a lot of words and have no discernable point" then kudos to you good sir/ma'am.  

I honestly can't tell if you are trying to comment on easy inspiration as being good, bad, or if even if it's relevant to what you wrote at all.


----------



## pnewman (Aug 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> If you goal was "Say a lot of words and have no discernable point" then kudos to you good sir/ma'am.
> 
> I honestly can't tell if you are trying to comment on easy inspiration as being good, bad, or if even if it's relevant to what you wrote at all.



Too long, didn't understand? Let me rephrase - "Players are supposed to do whatever the game lets them do. Therefore if One D&D lets players use Inspiration all the time then the game is now supposed to be about doing whatever it takes to have Inspiration."


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

pnewman said:


> Too long, didn't understand? Let me rephrase - "Players are supposed to do whatever the game lets them do. Therefore if One D&D lets players use Inspiration all the time then the game is now supposed to be about doing whatever it takes to have Inspiration."



The game lets me put a 3 in my most important stat and still play.  Am I supposed to be doing that because it's an option?

But you didn't answer the question...do the players at your table use guidance on every single check in the game it can be used?


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 26, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> Pick a fight > roll many d20 > pass Inspiration to allies > everybody has Inspiration.
> 
> It sounds a bit like the early suggestion of freely awarding advantage to players who did a good roleplay of what they were doing, which pretty much leads to advantage bloat.
> 
> Inspiration on a nat 20 is one of the biggest dealbreakers for me, they'd better present it as an optional rule. In my games I either don't use Inspiration at all, or use it very scarcily (typically only as a consolation prize to a player who purposefully made a sacrifice to save another or to roleplay a flaw of their PC, etc...). It's part of our playstyle. This rule forces everyone to use Inspiration.



Yep. You just convinced me.

I think inspiration is a cool game design idea, but I also liked it being fundamentally semi-optional and a matter of DM discretion. And the bad news is that while the inspiration on nat20s rule is clearly easily ignoreable, the playtest also encourages players to make race and feat choices that secure more of it for them (and give every player who just wants to play a human because they are a human inspiration every morning). Doubtlessly it will be embedded in various spells and class features before all is done. Thus it won't be an ignoreable rule without taking something away from players in fundamentally unbalanced ways.

So while I can imagine "nat20" inspiration being demoted to optional rule status, inspiration in general is probably going to be pretty deeply embedded in this system unless they make a major change from what seems to be the direction they plan to take it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I don't agree that any large majority of players is going to "naturally" do anything that impedes the flow of the game.  Do your players constantly use Help actions and guidance at each and every skill check at your table, or do they trot those out for only very critical checks that carry significant weight?



I didn't say or imply large majority. I went on to talk about how it's often just one or two but that will incentivize others to follow as they gain benefits from it.

And yes our players use guidance at every point where they can benefit from it and get it in there. The Help action is more for familiars, who use it very often. And no, this isn't for only significant checks. And that's with three different groups with almost no overlapping players. And Guidance spamming is a topic we've discussed here before that is an issue for some, so I a pretty sure it's not as unknown as you imply. It is after all a game - which attracts some people who like games and rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> The game lets me put a 3 in my most important stat and still play.  Am I supposed to be doing that because it's an option?



That was a pretty disingenuous response. He shouldn't need to state "because inspiration helps you do things better" for you to respond in that kind of context. I mean, were you just trying to pick a fight by misrepresenting his position? Not sure what he said to trigger that kind of thing. 

He's right. Some meaningful portion of players will naturally tend to do things which gain them BENEFITS in the game. A three in your ability score isn't that.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> That was a pretty disingenuous response. He shouldn't need to state "because inspiration helps you do things better" for you to respond in that kind of context. I mean, were you just trying to pick a fight by misrepresenting his position? Not sure what he said to trigger that kind of thing.
> 
> He's right. Some meaningful portion of players will naturally tend to do things which gain them BENEFITS in the game. A three in your ability score isn't that.



That's an issue with quality of players, not quality of the game system.

5e rewards players stopping every 5' of travel and saying "I look around for any danger" or every 5' of hallway and stating "I'm looking on all the walls, floor, and ceiling for traps." but doing so would grind the game to a halt.

5e also rewards players for taking a short rest after ever single expenditure of resources unless there is an imposed time limit on them.

In actual play neith of these two things happen, because players and GMs need the game to move at a certain pace.

Hand wringing about constant stupid die rolls to fish for inspiration strikes me as similar to the above two scenarios.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> That's an issue with quality of players, not quality of the game system.




So now you're saying players who seek to gain benefits in the game are low quality players?

I'll ask again, why are you trying to pick a fight? What about this conversation makes you think that level of discourse is called for here?


Sabathius42 said:


> 5e rewards players stopping every 5' of travel and saying "I look around for any danger" or every 5' of hallway and stating "I'm looking on all the walls, floor, and ceiling for traps." but doing so would grind the game to a halt.
> 
> 5e also rewards players for taking a short rest after ever single expenditure of resources unless there is an imposed time limit on them.
> 
> In actual play neith of these two things happen, because players and GMs need the game to move at a certain pace.




There are many MANY places where you can see people talking about 5 minute work days and the overly frequent use of short rests. So much so that it's expected WOTC are trying to eliminate short rests except for use of hit dice in part because of that issue. If it's not an issue in your game, that doesn't mean it's not a meaningful issue.


Sabathius42 said:


> Hand wringing about constant stupid die rolls to fish for inspiration strikes me as similar to the above two scenarios.



Well then I guess it's a real issue. Because, as I said, the concept of players seeking more frequent short rests due to burst damage from some classes is a very real issue for a lot of games and not an inconsequential issue.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> So now you're saying players who seek to gain benefits in the game are low quality players?




Yet another case of taking somebody’s statement to a logically consistent but by no means inevitable extreme end point and prefacing it with “So you’re saying that…”

Disingenuous rhetoric. 10 yard penalty. @Sabathius42’s ball. First down.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Yet another case of taking somebody’s statement to a logically consistent but by no means inevitable extreme end point and prefacing it with “So you’re saying that…”
> 
> Disingenuous rhetoric. 10 yard penalty. @Sabathius42’s ball. First down.



What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?




Dude, it's not binary, it's a spectrum.  Players should seek advantage by making good decisions that leverage their characters' strengths.  On the other hand, players who take that to an extreme and bog the game down trying to fish for tiny advantages doing pointless things like attacking chairs are annoying or worse.  And there's a whole lotta shades of grey in between.

But you lumped it all together as if there's no difference:


Mistwell said:


> So now you're saying players who seek to gain benefits in the game are low quality players?




Basically anybody who starts a post off with "So you're saying..." should stop and think.  It could be expressed, "Taken to its logical extreme, it seems like that means X.  But surely you don't mean X, so how am I misunderstanding you?"


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 26, 2022)

I had a player in Tuesday's IRL game that critted SEVEN times. He used inspiration (and gave it away) so many times that the whole fight went FASTER and everyone had a good time. I didn't have a problem with it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 26, 2022)

Bupp said:


> I like the idea of gaining inspiration on a nat 1 instead. Gaining it on a nat 20 feels like "win more".




That seems like a better mechanic game-wise, but it does seem a little strange to be "inspired" by failure. It's not usually how psychology works. If that's not a problem for you (and I don't really see why it SHOULD be, it's a game, after all) then I say "go for it."

Perhaps you could change the name to "resolve" (as in, "I'm gonna try harder now, to make up for my mistakes").


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Dude, it's not binary, it's a spectrum.




No, for that context it HAD to be binary. At some points it's "not a problem" and then once you cross the line into "a problem" then it's...a problem. Hence a binary take. If it being "a problem" is based on "quality of players" that means he's saying it's in some way a "low enough quality" of players to have crossed the line into being a problem.





Bill Zebub said:


> Players should seek advantage by making good decisions that leverage their characters' strengths.  On the other hand, players who take that to an extreme and bog the game down trying to fish for tiny advantages doing pointless things like attacking chairs are annoying or worse.  And there's a whole lotta shades of grey in between.




But it's not a "tiny" advantage at all. Which is why I commented on the topic earlier with the Musician feat. It's advantage on any check: Death saves, Concentration, Saving Throws, Initiative, ANY d20. That's not a tiny thing for this game, it's a big thing, You want that. It's roughly a +5 to a check, depending on average target DC. I don't think it's "taking it to the extreme" to try to get advantage on any important check.

And I didn't say or imply attacking chairs. I started the conversation, and he had responded to it, with a list of examples none of which were anything like attacking chairs. They're ALL things players already do (check a door for traps, listen at a door for creatures, check for secret doors, try and identify various symbols on walls, etc..) but they might be inclined to do it more where they otherwise wouldn't have, which has a TENDANCY to slow the game down. See how that was never stated as an extreme like you tried to spin it?

Seems like you decided to strawman me claiming I was taking it to the extreme, and then your strawman took it to the extreme? Or had you just not read the posts leading up to this?



Bill Zebub said:


> But you lumped it all together as if there's no difference:




Ha no, I really didn't. You did. I spelled out the behavior I was talking about with specific examples, none of which you mentioned. You exaggerated my position, while...accusing me of exaggerating someone else's position. Which I gotta say, is pretty funny, if you hadn't been so indignant about it.



Bill Zebub said:


> Basically anybody who starts a post off with "So you're saying..." should stop and think.  It could be expressed, "Taken to its logical extreme, it seems like that means X.  But surely you don't mean X, so how am I misunderstanding you?"




Well you didn't start your post off with "so you're saying" but you did that very thing to me. And he was in fact saying bad players. I have yet to hear you explain how he was not. He was in fact responding with a binary response - I can see no other way to read it and you just posited it was a spectrum without actually examining the statement you were applying it to and seeing there wasn't a rational way to take it as a spectrum rather than him commenting on the problem being "low quality players".


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?



It's not really that complicated.

If, in any DnD game, the players actions begin to slow the game down past what the table can bear the GM should step in and say "Hey everyone, constantly focusing on X (X can be fishing for inspiration or searching for traps) is ruining the game.  Can you please dial it back?"

If the game continues to be ruined by those actions....it's bad players.

If the game move on without disruption, it's not a flaw in the basic game design.

You say your players search for traps often....but do they literally search for traps every 5' square?

5e would reward a player for searching every 5' square, but the game itself wouldn't survive it, so it doesn't happen.

AKA  Does your party make thousands of searches for traps rolls in every dungeon?  If not, why not?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> That was a pretty disingenuous response. He shouldn't need to state "because inspiration helps you do things better" for you to respond in that kind of context. I mean, were you just trying to pick a fight by misrepresenting his position? Not sure what he said to trigger that kind of thing.
> 
> He's right. Some meaningful portion of players will naturally tend to do things which gain them BENEFITS in the game. A three in your ability score isn't that.



His logic was "The game lets you do it  so everyone will do it all the time".  That's not sound logic.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 26, 2022)

Whatever, man.

My advice is that if somebody’s stance strikes you as leading to an illogical conclusion, ask them about it instead of telling them what they are saying.

Or don’t, and try to win teh Interwebz.


----------



## John R Davis (Aug 26, 2022)

Gain inspiration on a 1, not a 20.
It's simple failed forward


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> It's not really that complicated.
> 
> If, in any DnD game, the players actions begin to slow the game down past what the table can bear the GM should step in and say "Hey everyone, constantly focusing on X (X can be fishing for inspiration or searching for traps) is ruining the game.  Can you please dial it back?"
> 
> If the game continues to be ruined by those actions....it's bad players.




So we're all clear now on the issue. You WERE in fact saying "bad players" and not some "spectrum" of quality of players. It was a binary statement you were in fact making and I was not somehow misrepresenting what you said. 



Sabathius42 said:


> If the game move on without disruption, it's not a flaw in the basic game design.
> 
> You say your players search for traps often....but do they literally search for traps every 5' square?




No and I never said or implied searching for traps every 5' square. I gave examples, you responded to those examples, you know what I was referring to, and now you're acting like I was talking about searching every 5 feet?



Sabathius42 said:


> 5e would reward a player for searching every 5' square, but the game itself wouldn't survive it, so it doesn't happen.
> 
> AKA  Does your party make thousands of searches for traps rolls in every dungeon?  If not, why not?



I didn't say or imply thousands. Why do you keep strawmanning what I said?


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Whatever, man.
> 
> My advice is that if somebody’s stance strikes you as leading to an illogical conclusion, ask them about it instead of telling them what they are saying.
> 
> Or don’t, and try to win teh Interwebz.



No, it's not whatever man. Now that it's super clear he was in fact making a binary argument, after you went on post after post claiming I misrepresented what he was saying, this is the point where an adult says, "Whoops, you're right, sorry about that." I didn't tell him what he was saying, I accurately read what he was saying and responded to what he was saying, He agrees that is in fact what he was saying and only you jumped in with the snark for no reason. It's you, and only you, who misread it and then tried to "correct" people about some "spectrum of quality of players" nonsense.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> No, it's not whatever man. Now that it's super clear he was in fact making a binary argument, after you went on post after post claiming I misrepresented what he was saying, this is the point where an adult says, "Whoops, you're right, sorry about that." I didn't tell him what he was saying, I accurately read what he was saying and responded to what he was saying, He agrees that is in fact what he was saying and only you jumped in with the snark for no reason. It's you, and only you, who misread it and then tried to "correct" people about some "spectrum of quality of players" nonsense.




First, the post that you are claiming proves a sweeping condemnation of all players seeking advantage says:



> If, in any DnD game, the players actions begin to slow the game down past what the table can bear the GM should step in and say "Hey everyone, constantly focusing on X (X can be fishing for inspiration or searching for traps) is ruining the game.  Can you please dial it back?"
> 
> If the game continues to be ruined by those actions....it's bad players.




Now, in the version of English I learned that's pretty clearly describing some players who push the behavior beyond a certain point.  Not all of them, just those on one end of that spectrum.  If you read that sentence differently then I honestly don't know where to go from there. 

Second, _even if you were correct_, when you begin a post with "So what you're saying is..." then it looks an awful lot like you're not engaging in genuine discussion but instead just trying to win the Internet.

I won't make any suggestions about what adults should do at this point.  Your choices are yours.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 27, 2022)

Mathematically speaking, if more Inspiration is being handed out in game, and thus is being used more, and a 20 roll grants Inspiration, wouldn't the use of Inspiration make it more likely for more 20's to be rolled?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 27, 2022)

Honestly, the thing that gets me about this argument?

The players who are seeking advantage at every turn are going to be way smarter about this than making endless, pointless checks.

Rolling the die has a 5% chance of getting inspirtation.

Taking the Musician feat has a 100% chance of giving two to six people inspiration. Being a human has a 100% chance of giving them inspiration. Being a human who gets two feats, you could take Musician and Lucky, which gives another 2 to 6 instances of advantage. 

This means at level 1 you would have three instances of advantage before needing a short rest to use musician to get another instance of advantage. And you can give two instances of inspirtation to the party, meaning half of you have the thing. 100% guaranteed, no need to check for traps or attack chairs. Add in being a divination wizard for even more dice manipulation.


Additionally, if you have inspiration and are saving it for a saving throw or death save... you won't be seeking to get more inspiration, because you can't use it.

So, really, this is one of those situations where you have a player who has analyzed the game to find an exploit, but hasn't analyzed the game enough to realize that their exploit is a terribly ineffective way to achieve their goal, and thus causes a problem that is entire unneccesary.

And if you still have players doing everything that they possibly can to get inspiration, then remind them that you can still give inspiration for RP, and give them a free one at the start of every day. Then they have it, and they don't need to ruin your game. And if they need more, they RP for it, which is again, far more reliable than a 5% chance per roll.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> So we're all clear now on the issue. You WERE in fact saying "bad players" and not some "spectrum" of quality of players. It was a binary statement you were in fact making and I was not somehow misrepresenting what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem hung up on the spectrum thing, so let me clarify.

I said:  If players are inspiration fishing so much it's disturbing your game and they don't stop when you ask them the problem is bad players, not bad rules.

You said:  So now you are saying all players trying to gain an advantage are bad?

Bill Zebub said:  He didn't say all players who seek advantage are bad, just those seeking advantage to the point of ruining the game.  Players seeking advantage are a spectrum and those who are ruining the game are bad.

Clearer?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> rs. I started the conversation, and he had responded to it, with a list of examples none of which were anything like attacking chairs. They're ALL things players already do (check a door for traps, listen at a door for creatures, check for secret doors, try and identify various symbols on walls, etc..) but they might be inclined to do it more where they otherwise wouldn't have, which has a TENDANCY to slow the game down. See how that was never stated as an extreme like you tried to spin it?
> 
> Seems like you decided to strawman me claiming I was taking it to the extreme, and then your strawman took it to the extreme? Or had you just not read the posts leading up to this?



For some reason you keep conflating posts I replied to you and posts I replied to another user as being one and the same conversation.

The ridiculous extreme examples were indeed NOT said by you, but we're instead by other posters in this thread....one of which I replied to directly to call out as nonsensical but which you chose to step in and defend.

So I'll repost the contents here and you can decide for yourself if this post is a reasonable expectation for how new inspiration might work in a game.

"In a good game anything the game lets you do is built into the math of the game. Therefore either D&D 5th and One D&D are not good games OR the players are supposed to spam Guidance on every single roll they can and it is already built into the math.
Thus we can logically conclude that, in One D&D, players are meant to spam for Inspiration constantly, almost always have Inspiration, and then apply it to every roll that matters. Thus, when One D&D players loose their Inspiration every morning, they are supposed to immediately start doing trivial things, pressure the DM into leting them roll for them, and all gain Inspiration as soon as they can every morning. One possible way that they could do this, if their DM says No to their rolling for trivial skill checks, is by attacking and killing random Commoners. Doing the math if four PC's each murder 50 Commoners every morning, using attack rolls to do so, then they are almost sure to have each rolled a 20 during the process, gaining Inspiration. Then they just kill the big bad (the other big bad, now that they are all serial mass killers) that same day, spening their Inspiration to make it easier."


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 27, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Then they just kill the big bad (the other big bad, now that they are all serial mass killers) that same day, spening their Inspiration to make it easier."




I'll double down on my point that the potential gain of this strategy is minor.  Sure, advantage is pretty helpful on _one_ roll*.  But boss fights usually involve more than one roll, and killing a bunch of commoners so that you can get a bonus on a single one of them is...a waste of everybody's time.

*Although I'll point out that the "equivalent to +5" is only true if the raw d20 roll you need is close to 10.  If you have a chance to succeed that's much greater or lower that value drops off.   The impact would be a lot greater with the house rule that says Advantage can be used to re-roll.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2022)

*Mod Note:*

@Bill Zebub @Mistwell 

Perhaps this is the time to disengage with each other, because you’re just butting heads at this point.


----------



## pnewman (Aug 28, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> The game lets me put a 3 in my most important stat and still play.  Am I supposed to be doing that because it's an option?
> 
> But you didn't answer the question...do the players at your table use guidance on every single check in the game it can be used?



No, they do not, but when they do not they are making a mistake because when I selected the DC of the check I had to assume that they would use Guidance, because they often do. When they forget they are only hurting themselves.
Similarly, if gaining Inspiration on any Nat 20 becomes a rule I will have to make every fight harder to account for the possibility of them spending it more often. Currently they hoard Inspiration in case they have to make Death Saves so clearly I will have to force them to make more Death Saves to use up those extra Inspirations.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 28, 2022)

This is one of those things that may make an initial impact, but not a long-term one. Players may initially be enamoured of the new Inspiration system, and deliberately go out fishing for extra Inspiration, but within a few sessions most will settle down and just go back to playing the game in regular fashion.

Of course, this does make it a bit of an awkward one to playtest, as you're likely to see more of that first part than the second during the brief time you're trying out the rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 28, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, they do not, but when they do not they are making a mistake because when I selected the DC of the check I had to assume that they would use Guidance, because they often do. When they forget they are only hurting themselves.




Wait…seriously? What’s your process for that?  Since guidance gives you a d4, which averages 2.5, I’m imagining setting a DC, then increasing it by 2 half the time, and 3 the other half the time. 

Do you also increase ACs by 1 when they find a +1 sword.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 28, 2022)

We had it bog down last night... We have tried a few times in the last 8 years and the mechanic is not memorable enough for us to keep it up.  I have to say that now when we remember it, it cost us time back engineering (rolling back through roll 20) to figure who did and didn't have it,

what is worse more then half our rolls have advantage as is... having a mechanic that is unintuitive and hard to remember for a minor bonus sometimes is annoying


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> We had it bog down last night... We have tried a few times in the last 8 years and the mechanic is not memorable enough for us to keep it up.  I have to say that now when we remember it, it cost us time back engineering (rolling back through roll 20) to figure who did and didn't have it,
> 
> what is worse more then half our rolls have advantage as is... having a mechanic that is unintuitive and hard to remember for a minor bonus sometimes is annoying




Honestly? "If you didn't record it, you don't have it." 

I will do a lot to help my players, I even have enough mental space to track certain things for my players, but if they didn't bother writing it down, then they don't get it. I'm not wasting table time scrolling back to see.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 28, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, they do not, but when they do not they are making a mistake because when I selected the DC of the check I had to assume that they would use Guidance, because they often do. When they forget they are only hurting themselves.
> Similarly, if gaining Inspiration on any Nat 20 becomes a rule I will have to make every fight harder to account for the possibility of them spending it more often. Currently they hoard Inspiration in case they have to make Death Saves so clearly I will have to force them to make more Death Saves to use up those extra Inspirations.




I pretty much never adjust the DC based on the bonuses they may have. And I can't imagine your player's roll hot enough that you need to increase the difficulty of the fights to account for rolling 20's and getting inspiration.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 28, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, they do not, but when they do not they are making a mistake because when I selected the DC of the check I had to assume that they would use Guidance, because they often do. When they forget they are only hurting themselves.
> Similarly, if gaining Inspiration on any Nat 20 becomes a rule I will have to make every fight harder to account for the possibility of them spending it more often. Currently they hoard Inspiration in case they have to make Death Saves so clearly I will have to force them to make more Death Saves to use up those extra Inspirations.



We have fundamental differences in Gaming here which is probably why we view the impact of lots of inspiration differently.

When I set a DC I look at the definition chart and pick a number based on how I judge the task should be.   If the task is hard it's a 15.  Easy is a 5.  The skills, powers, and other factors that the players have does not influence the number of the check at all.

Your process sounds like you are setting the DC by how hard you want it to be for your particular group to achieve it, ignoring the established definitions.

In other words, at your table the DC for Medium starts at 10 and escalates over time to account for character growth, whereas at my table Medium is 10 at 1st through 20th level.

I would find your method exhausting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> Honestly? "If you didn't record it, you don't have it."



okay and when no one remembers including the DM?


Chaosmancer said:


> I will do a lot to help my players, I even have enough mental space to track certain things for my players, but if they didn't bother writing it down, then they don't get it. I'm not wasting table time scrolling back to see.



so again... what does that mean, when everyone forgets?  to me it comes down to "we just aren't useing it" or "We have to bog down looking"  and BOTH lead to a bad rule


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay and when no one remembers including the DM?




Poof.



GMforPowergamers said:


> so again... what does that mean, when everyone forgets?




Exactly that.  Everyone forgets. 

Is it possible that by allowing people to scroll back and recover it, they're learning that they don't have to remember?


----------



## Vael (Aug 29, 2022)

Well, I'm planning on implementing gaining Inspiration on both a Nat 1 and Nat 20 as a houserule when my campaign starts up again, I'll report back.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Is it possible that by allowing people to scroll back and recover it, they're learning that they don't have to remember?



gee... I have complained about this sub system for 8 years as being forgetable... but sure, the week 2 of trying to use it on roll20 might be the cause of 6 years before I even heard of roll20


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> gee... I have complained about this sub system for 8 years as being forgetable... but sure, the week 2 of trying to use it on roll20 might be the cause of 6 years before I even heard of roll20




Not sure I’m parsing this correctly, but do you mean this thing about forgetting and scrolling back has only been going on for one or two sessions?

If so, then I don’t find it surprising that people are forgetting. And I also think the solution is the same: no scrolling back, and eventually they’ll remember.


----------



## darjr (Aug 29, 2022)

So I ran the Emridy Medows adventure, highly customized and used this rule.

The big callout for me is that players used inspiration on their own. They even declared before rolling. They responded with glee when they got it via a roll of a crit.

I wasn’t expecting it to work but it worked better than I could have hoped.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Not sure I’m parsing this correctly, but do you mean this thing about forgetting and scrolling back has only been going on for one or two sessions?



we tried using inspiration as presented in the 2014 PHB.  I even (when we were in person) had bought little wooden chips that say inspiration on them. about 2017 I was giveing up on the mechanic, we just didn't find it useful. 1/2 the time we forgot (DM and PLayers) to use/give them even when the wooden chips where on the table. And the only times we really used them were more reroll and less advantage... in 2019 pre covid I broke out those chips for a game at a store and found the same problem.

now for the last 2 sessions we have been trying the playtest ones... and game 2 we all forgot about it.


Bill Zebub said:


> If so, then I don’t find it surprising that people are forgetting. And I also think the solution is the same: no scrolling back, and eventually they’ll remember.



or they wont... again my feed back is that it is a less then good system that needs a rewrite to make it more memorable...


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> we tried using inspiration as presented in the 2014 PHB.  I even (when we were in person) had bought little wooden chips that say inspiration on them. about 2017 I was giveing up on the mechanic, we just didn't find it useful. 1/2 the time we forgot (DM and PLayers) to use/give them even when the wooden chips where on the table. And the only times we really used them were more reroll and less advantage... in 2019 pre covid I broke out those chips for a game at a store and found the same problem.
> 
> now for the last 2 sessions we have been trying the playtest ones... and game 2 we all forgot about it.
> 
> or they wont... again my feed back is that it is a less then good system that needs a rewrite to make it more memorable...



This echos my experience.  In 5e we used inspiration early on, keeping track of it bye handing out poker chips.  Players rarely used it, forgot about having it, and as a feedback loop I forgot to give them out enough to get a circulation going.

This is both GM assigning and players assigning inspiration for excellent play.

Contrasted, Torg uses a metacurrency like inspiration that also uses poker chips.  In that system the value of a chip is much higher (they let you roll again and add instead of take the best AND can soak a massive amount of damage), players have 3 or 4 at the start of an adventure, and there is a mechanical point where they refresh.  In this system the meta currency was always in my players minds as an option because it is frequently used.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay and when no one remembers including the DM?
> 
> so again... what does that mean, when everyone forgets?  to me it comes down to "we just aren't useing it" or "We have to bog down looking"  and BOTH lead to a bad rule




I've had players forget to include bless on their rolls. Sometimes I catch it to remind them, if we are three rounds of combat later, poof. Does that make bless a bad rule? No. 

It will take time to learn, but saying it delayed the game because you went trawling through the chat to find the rolls you forgot to count isn't the fault of the rule. And frankly, if crits are either so ubiquitous or so unimpactful that no one can remember if they crit or not within the last few minutes, that's a bad sign for crits, not for inspiration.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 29, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> This echos my experience.  In 5e we used inspiration early on, keeping track of it bye handing out poker chips.  Players rarely used it, forgot about having it, and as a feedback loop I forgot to give them out enough to get a circulation going.
> 
> This is both GM assigning and players assigning inspiration for excellent play.
> 
> Contrasted, Torg uses a metacurrency like inspiration that also uses poker chips.  In that system the value of a chip is much higher (they let you roll again and add instead of take the best AND can soak a massive amount of damage), players have 3 or 4 at the start of an adventure, and there is a mechanical point where they refresh.  In this system the meta currency was always in my players minds as an option because it is frequently used.




In my experience, I forgot inspiration because I saved it for important rolls. It actually frustrated the GM because they would try and award me inspiration and I already had it from previous moments in the story. Then, because it was play by post and adventures could take a month or two, I'd forget about it. 

Haven't had a chance to try the new system yet (hopefully that will change "soon") but I suspect the changes will cause it to be used far more often.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Contrasted, Torg uses a metacurrency like inspiration that also uses poker chips.  In that system the value of a chip is much higher



same group I am playing with me now, we use Torg and the 4e action points and the poker chips for deadlands/savage world... the issue isn't "We cant remember any metacurrency" it's "This is both forgettable and not that useful"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> I've had players forget to include bless on their rolls. Sometimes I catch it to remind them, if we are three rounds of combat later, poof. Does that make bless a bad rule? No.



if you forget once or twice that isn't... if a significant portion of the player base tells you they forget all the time, maybe bless isn't doing enough to matter.


Chaosmancer said:


> It will take time to learn, but saying it delayed the game because you went trawling through the chat to find the rolls you forgot to count isn't the fault of the rule.



the fault of the rule is it is not intuitive and is not a major enough thing to be remembered. You need it to be more impactful or more intuitive... or both


Chaosmancer said:


> And frankly, if crits are either so ubiquitous or so unimpactful that no one can remember if they crit or not within the last few minutes, that's a bad sign for crits, not for inspiration.



we knew we critted... we didn't remember when (before or after last LR)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 30, 2022)

Allowing it to be used for a re-roll has a HUGE impact on players remembering to use it, in my experience.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Allowing it to be used for a re-roll has a HUGE impact on players remembering to use it, in my experience.



yeah I think that would be more like it... that way when you fail or roll low and try to think you can spend your pt... instead of saying "Shoot, I forgot I had this"


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you forget once or twice that isn't... if a significant portion of the player base tells you they forget all the time, maybe bless isn't doing enough to matter.
> 
> the fault of the rule is it is not intuitive and is not a major enough thing to be remembered. You need it to be more impactful or more intuitive... or both
> 
> we knew we critted... we didn't remember when (before or after last LR)




Forgetting bless is practically a meme. It is why my table adopted the term "#Blessed" to remind people. But talk to anyone into optimization and Bless is the greatest tool on the table and worth using all the time. So it is clearly powerful, it is just easy to forget. 

Now, to roll this back, if the end goal of this debate is that we want Inspiration to be able to be used for re-rolls... I'm 100% on board with that. That's how a lot of people use it, and that is a fine use for it. I'd like to see it canonized in the rules (despite the crowd who would use it to claim that is a sign of the easy mode player's-are-never-allowed-to-fail train) 

But not remembering a new rule on the second time you are using it? That's not uncommon.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 30, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> But not remembering a new rule on the second time you are using it? That's not uncommon.




If crits had never been a thing and suddenly was a new rule, you can bet people would be forgetting to roll that extra damage.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> Forgetting bless is practically a meme. It is why my table adopted the term "#Blessed" to remind people. But talk to anyone into optimization and Bless is the greatest tool on the table and worth using all the time. So it is clearly powerful, it is just easy to forget.



I don't know if it is a meme in 5e, in 3e when it was +1 it was... now all our experiences are different, but in my games any campaign with bless being used we mostly remember it (I wont say we NEVER forget bonuses) but since we use roll20 now and just have a check mark to hit for 'bless' when it is cast and to uncheck when it goes down nobody CAN forget it anymore.

But if you think the bless spell needs to be reworked so that it is more memorable I will 100% back that.


Chaosmancer said:


> Now, to roll this back, if the end goal of this debate is that we want Inspiration to be able to be used for re-rolls... I'm 100% on board with that.



my end goal is 1 of 2 options... either A) do not use it on main line effects (rolls of 20, human race, musician feat so far) or B ) make it more memorable and intuitive...   making it a reroll is part of B.


Chaosmancer said:


> But not remembering a new rule on the second time you are using it? That's not uncommon.



no, but if you listen to my (and others some in this very thread) feed back (and I hope WotC will listen in a few days) it isn't "we don't like inspiration" or "The first time we tried it we couldn't grasp it" its "We have tried over and over and it is both forgettable and not that big of a change so we don't often use it"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If crits had never been a thing and suddenly was a new rule, you can bet people would be forgetting to roll that extra damage.



I don't know I think that 20's come up so infrequently that when they do they are noticed. the extra damage (IMO) would have come out more of "Oh wow I get to do double damage now" 

to put this in perspective, a sub group of my D&D players play TORG. In that game a special effect goes off (Details unimportant) on rolling a 10 or a 20. Game night one we had someone roll a 10 and say "Cool that's like a crit right" even though it wasn't a 20.  The added effect was BIG enough and IMPORANT and pretty INTUATIVE so that night 1 session 1 we all got it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know I think that 20's come up so infrequently that when they do they are noticed.




The interesting thing is that 14's occur _exactly as infrequently_, but we don't notice those.

I suspect the reason we notice 20's is that crit damage has made them special, and we've all been trained to look for them.

And, in time, players will remember they also get Inspiration.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The interesting thing is that 14's occur _exactly as infrequently_, but we don't notice those.



but we would if a new mechanic said it (unless the mechanic was unintuitive and weak) see my TORG example where we went from 20's crit to 20's and 10's crit (not exactly the same) 
also see when we play WoD and roll 10 sided dice and 1's and 10's matter... unless you are specialized then 9's 10's and 1's matter... I have never seen a table that said "Man we keep forgetting specializations" 

back in 3e a friend had a house rule base on evens and odds... on ALL dice, and it took a little bit to get into the swing of it but we were not constantly forgetting. 

I don't know why you are opposed to the feed back?


Bill Zebub said:


> I suspect the reason we notice 20's is that crit damage has made them special, and we've all been trained to look for them.



I suspect it is the max number/ min number... because I see people get super happy rolling 'box cars' on 2d6 or sad at 'snake eyes' but really it is just the highest and lowest numbers possible. 

and again this wouldn't explain why it was so easy to see 10's on a d20 as a crit when we played TORG


Bill Zebub said:


> And, in time, players will remember they also get Inspiration.



except my (and others on this very thread) feed back is that no, nothing has made them memorable yet.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no, but if you listen to my (and others some in this very thread) feed back (and I hope WotC will listen in a few days) it isn't "we don't like inspiration" or "The first time we tried it we couldn't grasp it" its "We have tried over and over and it is both forgettable and not that big of a change so we don't often use it"



It's forgettable because it relies upon a nebulous requirement to be both fulfilled by the player and acknowledged by the DM.

And it's rarely used once rewarded because the player knows it's rare, and thus holds off on using it until they're in a pinch - at which point they forget about it in the excitement of the moment.

The new version goes a long way towards solving both of those, being triggered by a concrete event that players are already primed to take notice of, and - as a result - showing up frequently enough that players should be more inclined to spend it relatively freely.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

MarkB said:


> It's forgettable because it relies upon a nebulous requirement to be both fulfilled by the player and acknowledged by the DM.
> 
> And it's rarely used once rewarded because the player knows it's rare, and thus holds off on using it until they're in a pinch - at which point they forget about it in the excitement of the moment.
> 
> The new version goes a long way towards solving both of those, being triggered by a concrete event that players are already primed to take notice of, and - as a result - showing up frequently enough that players should be more inclined to spend it relatively freely.



okay and my feed back (2 weeks in we used it 2 weeks in 1 game and 1 week in the other so 3 sessions total) is that it was not very helpful. it is too easily forgotten, and not beneficial enough.  

I did a count for a different argument on how often my players roll with advantage vs normal vs with disadvantage. It came out about 60% of the time they had advantage, about 10% of the time they had disadvantage... I wish I remembered the exact numbers but it was looking back over multi game sessions and 2 campaigns.  (the argument was dumb about using description to grant advantage and me not giving it enough)    So maybe in this I am an outlier. (also i don't allow flanking because it seems they have advantage enough without that) this new rule (if we remember it) will increase the advantage and decrease the disadvantage.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay and my feed back (2 weeks in we used it 2 weeks in 1 game and 1 week in the other so 3 sessions total) is that it was not very helpful. it is too easily forgotten, and not beneficial enough.



Fine, but there have been other playtest reports where players took to the rule enthusiastically, remembered it consistently and got a lot of use out of it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Fine, but there have been other playtest reports where players took to the rule enthusiastically, remembered it consistently and got a lot of use out of it.



so does that mean if you are asked for feed back on a meal you don't like you wont tell them because someone else DID like it?


----------



## MarkB (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so does that mean if you are asked for feed back on a meal you don't like you wont tell them because someone else DID like it?



No, it means that I'll acknowledge that the meal is not for me, without advocating that the restaurant remove it from their menu entirely and thus deny it to those diners who do enjoy it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

MarkB said:


> No, it means that I'll acknowledge that the meal is not for me, without advocating that the restaurant remove it from their menu entirely and thus deny it to those diners who do enjoy it.



I said it should be changed so that everyone would like it (well more people, lets be honest even if they gave out free money they would not please everyone) 

the problem is it is NOT an optional mechanic when it is built into a race and a feat already. (not to mention crits) I think asking for things to be better isn't the same as saying "Take that slop off the menu".  Again it is WotC asking for our feed back. It's fine to have different feedback. It's fine for one person to like something and another person to not like it.  

I don't know where people get the idea that there should never be negative feed back... but I fear for the system we will get if they just get yes men answers.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> So I ran the Emridy Medows adventure, highly customized and used this rule.
> 
> The big callout for me is that players used inspiration on their own. They even declared before rolling. They responded with glee when they got it via a roll of a crit.
> 
> I wasn’t expecting it to work but it worked better than I could have hoped.



I think new players will get it better then us vets.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know why you are opposed to the feed back?



I’m not. I’m just not at all surprised by it, nor do I take it as a sign of poor design. 

Years ago I tried to train a dog using the clicker method. That didn’t work at all and I gave up. 

This year I tried again and it actually works great. I just wasn’t patient enough the first time, and expected results immediately.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

Dogs different too, even if it was the same dog. 

I think that applies here too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m not. I’m just not at all surprised by it, nor do I take it as a sign of poor design.
> 
> Years ago I tried to train a dog using the clicker method. That didn’t work at all and I gave up.
> 
> This year I tried again and it actually works great. I just wasn’t patient enough the first time, and expected results immediately.



This is a great analogy.   Because for some reason dog trainers (especially online) seem to ALWAYS think that they have the 1 answer.  I have had 5 dogs (my own not a parent, me) and I have not found almost anything that is 1 size fits all (also the dogs were all different breeds) i got 2 of them house broken, of the 3 that were not I trained 2 of them no problem and I'm having a lot of problem with my little stitch.

If how ever you tell a trainer that something didn't work (especially online) they will peacock up and say YOU must be doing it wrong (even if they can't show why)

my favorite example was 20 years ago when I got a puppy and he was having issues with jumping on me and my family when we came home. The things I was 'doing wrong' was giving him table scraps and letting him on the furniture... I told them "I guess if I am more of a jerk to him he wont be as excited to see me so that tracks"    BTW we did train him with treats to not jump on us.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> This is a great analogy.   Because for some reason dog trainers (especially online) seem to ALWAYS think that they have the 1 answer.




Yes! That is perfect. They do all think they have the one answer. 

But the one thing they will agree on is that, whatever method you use, don’t expect to see much behavior change after two sessions.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Aug 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know if it is a meme in 5e, in 3e when it was +1 it was... now all our experiences are different, but in my games any campaign with bless being used we mostly remember it (I wont say we NEVER forget bonuses) but since we use roll20 now and just have a check mark to hit for 'bless' when it is cast and to uncheck when it goes down nobody CAN forget it anymore.
> 
> But if you think the bless spell needs to be reworked so that it is more memorable I will 100% back that.




No, I don't think Bless needs reworked. My point is that forgetting a rule, especially a new rule, isn't uncommon.



GMforPowergamers said:


> my end goal is 1 of 2 options... either A) do not use it on main line effects (rolls of 20, human race, musician feat so far) or B ) make it more memorable and intuitive...   making it a reroll is part of B.




I am fine with making it a re-roll, since that is how people use it, I think that is different from your complaints.



GMforPowergamers said:


> no, but if you listen to my (and others some in this very thread) feed back (and I hope WotC will listen in a few days) it isn't "we don't like inspiration" or "The first time we tried it we couldn't grasp it" its "We have tried over and over and it is both forgettable and not that big of a change so we don't often use it"




Okay, but here is the problem. 

If your feedback is "We have been trying for years to remember inspiration, and we just can't." Then WoTC is going to go "Yes, we know this. That is why we changed the rules." 

Your feedback needs to be only over this last week or two, where you are using the rules they changed. And additionally, since you are using a new rule, of course it is going to have hiccups. But you DID remember it, it may have been afterwards, but it was progress. 

So, tell them they are on the right track, but haven't made it yet. But I don't think acting like nothing has changed is terribly accurate to the playtest.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 31, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> No, I don't think Bless needs reworked. My point is that forgetting a rule, especially a new rule, isn't uncommon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Six months from now, one of these posts will read: “I keep forgetting that my Fighter can now do all these superhuman, epic things that would turn Wizards green with envy if only I could remember to use them. So I guess these new rules suck.”


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Yes! That is perfect. They do all think they have the one answer.
> 
> But the one thing they will agree on is that, whatever method you use, don’t expect to see much behavior change after two sessions.



I wish that was true there are youtube videos that say "I never did anything and look at how he listens"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> If your feedback is "We have been trying for years to remember inspiration, and we just can't." Then WoTC is going to go "Yes, we know this. That is why we changed the rules."
> 
> Your feedback needs to be only over this last week or two, where you are using the rules they changed. And additionally, since you are using a new rule, of course it is going to have hiccups. But you DID remember it, it may have been afterwards, but it was progress.
> 
> So, tell them they are on the right track, but haven't made it yet. But I don't think acting like nothing has changed is terribly accurate to the playtest.



my feed back will be as detailed as they allow for


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wish that was true there are youtube videos that say "I never did anything and look at how he listens"




Yeah I always believe stuff like that.


----------



## pnewman (Sep 1, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> We have fundamental differences in Gaming here which is probably why we view the impact of lots of inspiration differently.
> 
> When I set a DC I look at the definition chart and pick a number based on how I judge the task should be.   If the task is hard it's a 15.  Easy is a 5.  The skills, powers, and other factors that the players have does not influence the number of the check at all.
> 
> ...



No, that's not what I meant. Medium is always a 10 but as the party increase in skill they will face fewer low DC challenges and more higher DC challenges. I do math ahead of time to estimate their chances, and then decide how many tests in this encounter will be DC 10, DC 15, DC 20, etc.
Example - The Rogue in my party has a +7 to Perception and, with "Guidance" for a further +2.5 on average will usually roll a 20 (10.5+7+2.5). Therefore if I want this test to have a 55% chance of success, if she stops to look, then 20 is the DC I will set for spotting that trap. When she fails to ask for "Guidance" and the Druid fails to offer it they are only hurting themselves.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 1, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, that's not what I meant. Medium is always a 10 but as the party increase in skill they will face fewer low DC challenges and more higher DC challenges. I do math ahead of time to estimate their chances, and then decide how many tests in this encounter will be DC 10, DC 15, DC 20, etc.
> Example - The Rogue in my party has a +7 to Perception and, with "Guidance" for a further +2.5 on average will usually roll a 20 (10.5+7+2.5). Therefore if I want this test to have a 55% chance of success, if she stops to look, then 20 is the DC I will set for spotting that trap. When she fails to ask for "Guidance" and the Druid fails to offer it they are only hurting themselves.



Kinda sucks for them to be improving all the time as they level up and yet not actually seeing that translate into greater success, though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, that's not what I meant. Medium is always a 10 but as the party increase in skill they will face fewer low DC challenges and more higher DC challenges. I do math ahead of time to estimate their chances, and then decide how many tests in this encounter will be DC 10, DC 15, DC 20, etc.
> Example - The Rogue in my party has a +7 to Perception and, with "Guidance" for a further +2.5 on average will usually roll a 20 (10.5+7+2.5). Therefore if I want this test to have a 55% chance of success, if she stops to look, then 20 is the DC I will set for spotting that trap. When she fails to ask for "Guidance" and the Druid fails to offer it they are only hurting themselves.



so how do you handle groups that you could end up with some of them have +1 ish and others have +7ish (both could have guidance but neither is guaranteed to)?

I don't pay much attention to my players stats and skill mods, I just tell them the DC or pass/fail... if the DC is 11 or less and they are trained, or if 1+there bonus makes the DC they don't have to roll... and if a 20+modfired doesn't make it they just say they can't make it...


----------



## pnewman (Sep 1, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so how do you handle groups that you could end up with some of them have +1 ish and others have +7ish (both could have guidance but neither is guaranteed to)?
> 
> I don't pay much attention to my players stats and skill mods, I just tell them the DC or pass/fail... if the DC is 11 or less and they are trained, or if 1+there bonus makes the DC they don't have to roll... and if a 20+modfired doesn't make it they just say they can't make it...



I do the math based on whoever is best at the skill. My players almost always try to have every test done by the person with the biggest bonus. My Table Tracker lists every skill every PC is proficient (or Expert) in, so I know their approximate bonuses.


----------



## pnewman (Sep 1, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Kinda sucks for them to be improving all the time as they level up and yet not actually seeing that translate into greater success, though.



They do get greater success BUT I think that slightly improved chances at harder tests is more dramatic than drastically improved success at a bunch of Easy tests. At some point their PC's are going to want to take the training wheels off of their bicycles.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 1, 2022)

pnewman said:


> They do get greater success BUT I think that slightly improved chances at harder tests is more dramatic than drastically improved success at a bunch of Easy tests. At some point their PC's are going to want to take the training wheels off of their bicycles.



Yeah, but you're precisely calibrating the difficulty to their capabilities, including anything they can bring to bear to improve their chances, like _guidance_. So, instead of _guidance_ making a difficult check easier, it's actually making all checks harder.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 2, 2022)

pnewman said:


> No, that's not what I meant. Medium is always a 10 but as the party increase in skill they will face fewer low DC challenges and more higher DC challenges. I do math ahead of time to estimate their chances, and then decide how many tests in this encounter will be DC 10, DC 15, DC 20, etc.
> Example - The Rogue in my party has a +7 to Perception and, with "Guidance" for a further +2.5 on average will usually roll a 20 (10.5+7+2.5). Therefore if I want this test to have a 55% chance of success, if she stops to look, then 20 is the DC I will set for spotting that trap. When she fails to ask for "Guidance" and the Druid fails to offer it they are only hurting themselves.



I'm not a fan of this style of adventure math.  This system ends up penalizing all the characters not focused on a skill instead of making the character investing in the skill feel powerful.

For example, a mid level rogue built for stealth can routinely get 25s or better at Stealth checks.  If I design around that as a target I am basically telling the other characters to not even bother trying.  Instead I just let the rogue basically hide every time they want to hide because they invested in the ability to do so and they enjoy being able to do it.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 2, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but you're precisely calibrating the difficulty to their capabilities, including anything they can bring to bear to improve their chances, like _guidance_. So, instead of _guidance_ making a difficult check easier, it's actually making all checks harder.




Also what if instead of character X with guidance tackling a check the party ends up having to use character Y without guidance and the check becomes almost impossible?


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 2, 2022)

Retreater said:


> The game is already too easy to need to worry about using Inspiration. 5.5/6E will make it even easier for players.



It is only easy if you let it be. 5e is much easier to make a challenging when compared to 4e, and I could make 4e quire challenging for my players!


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 2, 2022)

Bupp said:


> I like the idea of gaining inspiration on a nat 1 instead. Gaining it on a nat 20 feels like "win more".



I like "win more." I mean, who really doesn't like win more?  I don't think I ever think: "I should really win less!"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 2, 2022)

pnewman said:


> I do the math based on whoever is best at the skill. My players almost always try to have every test done by the person with the biggest bonus. My Table Tracker lists every skill every PC is proficient (or Expert) in, so I know their approximate bonuses.



wow, okay thanks


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 2, 2022)

I set the DC based on how hard it feels. As the characters improve the players try harder and harder things.


----------



## Flamestrike (Sep 18, 2022)

I think it should be generated on a natural 1.

Compensation prizes are always nice, and its a good way to help out a player who is just rolling crap (and we we've all been there).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 18, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Yep. You just convinced me.
> 
> I think inspiration is a cool game design idea, but I also liked it being fundamentally semi-optional and a matter of DM discretion. And the bad news is that while the inspiration on nat20s rule is clearly easily ignoreable, the playtest also encourages players to make race and feat choices that secure more of it for them (and give every player who just wants to play a human because they are a human inspiration every morning). Doubtlessly it will be embedded in various spells and class features before all is done. Thus it won't be an ignoreable rule without taking something away from players in fundamentally unbalanced ways.
> 
> So while I can imagine "nat20" inspiration being demoted to optional rule status, inspiration in general is probably going to be pretty deeply embedded in this system unless they make a major change from what seems to be the direction they plan to take it.



Inspiration is being crowbarred into the game by WotC in 6e, because the designers liked it and it wasn't used enough in 5e's original configuration.  Inflating it's use like this in the playtest makes this clear to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 18, 2022)

MarkB said:


> No, it means that I'll acknowledge that the meal is not for me, without advocating that the restaurant remove it from their menu entirely and thus deny it to those diners who do enjoy it.



What does that even mean?  It's feedback.  If you don't like something, are you just supposed to not say anything when they ask you how you felt about it?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 18, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Six months from now, one of these posts will read: “I keep forgetting that my Fighter can now do all these superhuman, epic things that would turn Wizards green with envy if only I could remember to use them. So I guess these new rules suck.”



You're assuming a lot for the 6e fighter.  I'd love for you to be right.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 18, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Inspiration is being crowbarred into the game by WotC in 6e, because the designers liked it and it wasn't used enough in 5e's original configuration.  Inflating it's use like this in the playtest makes this clear to me.



I guess one person’s crowbar is another person’s sprinkling of confectioner’s sugar. Some of us have always liked the idea of Inspiration, just not how it was implemented.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 18, 2022)

I think WotC's attempts to tinker with nat 20s and nat 1s are coming from a desire to codify what is already happening at the table: players and DMs are treating those rolls as extra-special, even when RAW don't say they need to.

If your table is anything like mine, when a critical success or failure happens you find ways to make it really cool in the story, often in very impactful ways. And I think that is _great_. We don't need the new inspiration rule because we are already coming up with way more story-centric ways to recognize those moments.

So I think all WotC needs to do is add in a bit of writing really emphasizing that those rolls are really useful moments to spice up the story, and encourage DMs to use their imagination. That's what's fun. Stop trying to standardize something that works really well as is. Leave it alone.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 19, 2022)

I actually really like tying Inspiration to natural 20's to reflect that extra confidence that can accompany such a resounding success because it makes it an objective occurrence rather than relying on the DM to arbitrarily hand it out based on role-playing.  The existing method has resulted in our current player group getting pretty much zero awards of Inspiration after three years of regular play.

Part of the reason I believe is that our group is pretty seasoned and is _always_ playing in-character/adhering to our backgrounds, etc.  So what is the DM to do?  Hand out Inspiration every five minutes?  So I think his response has been to go the other way and basically hand out nothing because he's so used to our style of play that very little surprises or impresses him, so to speak.

So tying Inspiration to a static game mechanic means that it will actually come up in play (which I'm thankful for) while not occurring too often since nat 20's don't occur that frequently.


----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2022)

In business there's a thing "you get what you measure for".

If you are running a helpdesk and your metric for how everyone does is call volume, your staff will get people on and off as quick as possible.  More escalation to other groups, etc.  If your metric is first call resolve, you'll get a lot of long calls where if they don't know they will keep the user on the line while they reach out, read documentation, and the like.

If you give out a reward for rolling 20s, players will tend to activity that rolls more dice.  This is just human nature.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> If you give out a reward for rolling 20s, players will tend to activity that rolls more dice.  This is just human nature.



I don't know.  XP is often tied to killing things but I've never once played or GM'd a campaign where the party was hacking at every random townsperson or wayward traveler they came across because they'd be "rewarded."  I think if you're in a group where suddenly everyone starts to try and make as many skill checks as possible for no other reason than to earn Inspiration off nat 20's then I would tend to think that that's a pretty lame group with far greater concerns for the DM than Inspiration mechanics.


----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2022)

Kai Lord said:


> I don't know.  XP is often tied to killing things but I've never once played or GM'd a campaign where the party was hacking at every random townsperson or wayward traveler they came across because they'd be "rewarded."



This is the equivilent of "hanging up on every caller" to increase call volume.  It has it's own set of anti-rewards.  I assume that there was also some anti-reward to killing random townpeople?

I think we could make a fairly easy case that murderhobo as a style of play were encouraged by the "XP only for killing things" of a number of editions.  Evidence that yes, some players will tend toward what they are getting rewarded for.



Kai Lord said:


> I think if you're in a group where suddenly everyone starts to try and make as many skill checks as possible for no other reason than to earn Inspiration off nat 20's then I would tend to think that that's a pretty lame group with far greater concerns for the DM than Inspiration mechanics.



It's human nature, found across multiple disciplines.  If they didn't do it then bravo, you have a rare group of individuals or they aren't human.  Either way, keepers.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> In business there's a thing "you get what you measure for".
> 
> If you are running a helpdesk and your metric for how everyone does is call volume, your staff will get people on and off as quick as possible.  More escalation to other groups, etc.  If your metric is first call resolve, you'll get a lot of long calls where if they don't know they will keep the user on the line while they reach out, read documentation, and the like.
> 
> If you give out a reward for rolling 20s, players will tend to activity that rolls more dice.  This is just human nature.



And yet, the existing reward for people playing their character traits has not led to a noticeable uptick in people playing their character traits in many groups.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> This is the equivilent of "hanging up on every caller" to increase call volume.  It has it's own set of anti-rewards.  I assume that there was also some anti-reward to killing random townpeople?



And a DM can just as easily implement anti-rewards for abusing skill checks.  If you hang up on every caller in a real life call center then you aren't going to be rewarded with a raise despite technically having a call time far below the desired metric.  So with that in mind if a player says that they're going to attempt 20 different skills for the sole purpose of statistically guaranteeing a natural 20 then the DM can just say that the "specialness" of a nat 20 is wholly negated and therefore provides no inspiration.

That will force players to use the system, but not abuse it.  Like the call center employee who needs to find that sweet spot of quickly resolving a caller's complaint and getting them off the phone without coming across as rude or unthorough and making the caller _think _that they were rushed off the phone, D&D players can try to come up with narratively _valid _reasons for attempting new skill checks that might very well enhance play for everyone.

The old "Keep your distance Chewie but don't _look _like you're keeping your distance..." 

Because at the end of the day trying to accomplish cool things should be a good thing for characters and rewarding natural 20's can give some players who'd normally be content chilling in the back while the same party member always tries to open the door, disarm the trap, take point, persuade the guard, etc., might even be inspired (heh heh) to take it upon themselves to step up and attempt to do some of those things themselves.


----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2022)

Kai Lord said:


> And a DM can just as easily implement anti-rewards for abusing skill checks.



Are you proposing that this will be in the basic rules, or a house rule that some will adopt?  If it's in the books it's one thing.  If it's broken such that there needs to be a commonly adopted house rule to fix it that's another case.


----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2022)

MarkB said:


> And yet, the existing reward for people playing their character traits has not led to a noticeable uptick in people playing their character traits in many groups.



You mean the most ignored core rule?  The one that puts memorizing about 25 traits on the DM to remember to give out on top of everything else, and remember for the player to actually use.  Before it expires in ten game minutes.   There's been multiple threads here where most people ignore it, and if they don't they house rule it.

Again, I referenced murderhobos - are you saying that the editions of only XP for killing things has net been a big factor in that style of play?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 19, 2022)

Kai Lord said:


> I don't know.  XP is often tied to killing things but I've never once played or GM'd a campaign where the party was hacking at every random townsperson or wayward traveler they came across because they'd be "rewarded."  I think if you're in a group where suddenly everyone starts to try and make as many skill checks as possible for no other reason than to earn Inspiration off nat 20's then I would tend to think that that's a pretty lame group with far greater concerns for the DM than Inspiration mechanics.



With the current fad of milestone leveling, PCs are encouraged just to get through the adventure to the point where the DM says they can level.  Is that better?


----------



## MarkB (Sep 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> You mean the most ignored core rule?  The one that puts memorizing about 25 traits on the DM to remember to give out on top of everything else, and remember for the player to actually use.  Before it expires in ten game minutes.   There's been multiple threads here where most people ignore it, and if they don't they house rule it.



Yes, that was my point.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 19, 2022)

Kai Lord said:


> And a DM can just as easily implement anti-rewards for abusing skill checks.  If you hang up on every caller in a real life call center then you aren't going to be rewarded with a raise despite technically having a call time far below the desired metric.  So with that in mind if a player says that they're going to attempt 20 different skills for the sole purpose of statistically guaranteeing a natural 20 then the DM can just say that the "specialness" of a nat 20 is wholly negated and therefore provides no inspiration.
> 
> That will force players to use the system, but not abuse it.  Like the call center employee who needs to find that sweet spot of quickly resolving a caller's complaint and getting them off the phone without coming across as rude or unthorough and making the caller _think _that they were rushed off the phone, D&D players can try to come up with narratively _valid _reasons for attempting new skill checks that might very well enhance play for everyone.
> 
> ...



I think that, rather than encouraging using the system, it would encourage resenting the system.


----------



## Blue (Sep 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yes, that was my point.



Great, we both agree the rule is basically ignored.

Which means it can't have any impact on influencing play.  So it's a null in this discussion.  There is no reward being offered, so it can't influence the players.

Now, if the rule was regularly used, and it didn't influence play towards playing of the traits, that would mean something.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 20, 2022)

Blue said:


> This is the equivilent of "hanging up on every caller" to increase call volume.  It has it's own set of anti-rewards.  I assume that there was also some anti-reward to killing random townpeople?
> 
> I think we could make a fairly easy case that murderhobo as a style of play were encouraged by the "XP only for killing things" of a number of editions.  Evidence that yes, some players will tend toward what they are getting rewarded for.
> 
> ...



I think that’s an egregious misapplication of the measurement principle. Inspiration isn’t the only reward (paycheck) in the game. The reward is having fun, which having inspiration may contribute to. But if the decrease in overall fun due to fishing for 20s is of larger magnitude than the increase  due to having more inspiration, people won’t do it.


----------



## Blue (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I think that’s an egregious misapplication of the measurement principle. Inspiration isn’t the only reward (paycheck) in the game. The reward is having fun, which having inspiration may contribute to. But if the decrease in overall fun due to fishing for 20s is of larger magnitude than the increase  due to having more inspiration, people won’t do it.



I think you are confused.  There is no requirement that something be the only reward in order for it to be a reward, and therefore affect behavior.  And I think you will find that people in D&D tend to enjoy character success.

Also, please see the example I keep bringing up about murderhobos, a well known phenomenon, and only XP for killing in several editions if you do not think a character-focused reward will motivate players.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 20, 2022)

Blue said:


> I think you are confused.




Well, that's ironic.  



Blue said:


> There is no requirement that something be the only reward in order for it to be a reward, and therefore affect behavior.  And I think you will find that people in D&D tend to enjoy character success.




Yes, and...

"Character success" does not directly map to having inspiration; it's just one of many factors.  And, of course, "character success" is only one factor in the larger goal of having fun.  Players are not all min-maxers, and not all players always choose the action that is most likely to lead to success.

Will there be _some_ incentive to make more rolls, for the purpose of getting 20's?  Yes.  Will _some_ people respond to this incentive more than others, at least when first trying out the rule?  Yes.  But, unlike "pay for quantity", there is not one factor here.

But more importantly, there is a huge difference between externally imposed metrics/rewards, and the rewards we give ourselves.  The desire to have fun, and to have character success, comes from ourselves.  It is not an externally imposed metric.  If making extra rolls isn't fun, people won't do it, even if it can lead in a roundabout way to another facet of fun.

I'm not denying that the mantra "that which is not measured is optional" is relevant to a work environment.  I've seen firsthand how true it is.  I just don't think it applies well, or maybe at all, to gaming.



Blue said:


> Also, please see the example I keep bringing up about murderhobos, a well known phenomenon, and only XP for killing in several editions if you do not think a character-focused reward will motivate players.




What do you mean by "well-known phenomenon"?  Documentation?  It hasn't been my experience.  Sure, there's an incentive to kill all the monsters in the dungeon, whereas milestone leveling makes it more likely that unnecessary monsters are skipped (although, even then, players think there might be some treasure).  But I have never once been in a game where a player wanted to kill innocent farmers for a few extra XP.  Wouldn't your theory predict that such behavior would be commonplace?


----------

