I post this on the Char Dev board on the Wizard forums...

[elliott20]

But there wasn't a whole lot of discussion around it, so I thought I'd try my luck here.


I've been playing Burning Empires for a bit lately, and one of the things I really liked was how the system doesn't enforcing roleplaying, but it encourages it by rewarding players for doing it. Upon looking over some of the D&D mechanics, I realized that you actually CAN do it for D&D if people are willing to give it a whirl.

To make this work though, we need to set down some basic concepts:

Beliefs: These are things you believe that will lead you to act in a certain way. Something to lines of "I believe all Orcs are evil, so I will exterminate all Orcs" is an example of a belief. In BE, playing towards a belief gets you a thing called a fate point (which can modify your die rolls) and actually resolving a belief can earn you a deeds point (a fate point that can significantly modify your die roll).

Instincts: these are things your character will always do automatically. i.e. "always carry a weapon" or "shoot first, ask questions later". The main usage of instincts is to 1. identify and characterize your characters behavior in certain situations and 2. gain fate points with them. In BE, defying an instinct or obeying it when you know it will get you into trouble will net you a fate point. So if your instinct "always strip search someone" could end up getting you a bunch of fate points, because obeying it could get you in trouble A LOT.

What are fate points? Fate points are basically like "hero points". In BE you use them to either modify a roll, re-roll a failure, or give yourself a bonus to a roll. Fundamentally, this needs to be reworked for D&D. But the idea here is that these are points you use for crucial encounters. Earning them in BE is restricted to sessions and you can only earn a certain amount of points per session. This basically means you're constantly working towards your goal and you're constantly getting yourself in trouble through your instincts.

I have more ideas but I want to see how receptive people are towards these concepts in rough draft form.

[Tallis]

Just replace Fate Points with Action Points (sounds like the same thing). Also all instincts and beliefs should be approved by the DM to avoid instincts like strip-search everyone which will net an unreasonable amount of AP.

Seems very workable to me. I've considered doing something like this in my own games, but haven't gotten to try it yet.

[elliott20]

Yeah, spamming instincts was a concern for a second. That's why the original rule set I took this from had a safe guard against it - namely, you can only gain a fate point from an instinct / belief once per session.


Here's how it works:

Every character starts with a certain number of FP decided by the GM. (I'd say no more than 4-5 to start)

At creation, every character comes up with 3 beliefs (or goals) and 3 instincts.

At the end of the game session, the players and GM will go over each player's performance by examining people believe they've acted upon their beliefs (or goals, if you prefer) and instincts. You gain ONE FP for each belief you worked towards this session. You can only gain one FP from one belief per session. (or every half if you feel it appropriate) So, this way, you can't just spam the same belief to get hundreds of FP in one session.

If the players and GM believe that the player has taken this belief to the next level and has played it out interestingly, they can give him an extra bonus FP for it.

The same works for instincts. Each instinct that you use to get yourself trouble (or deliberately not used, knowing that you're gonna get in trouble for it) gets you a FP as well.

Then we move onto the next portion, resolving beliefs. If a character's goal/belief has been resolved through gameplay, (finally avenging your father's killer, finally getting that coveted magic item) you gain 4 FPs for this. When this happens, the player must then write in a new belief in place of the old one, signifying their character's mental growth as well.

In the case that a player feels a belief or instinct is just not working out very well (in that it hasn't really done anything for the player in a while) or is just not fun to play, the player can ask the table to allow him/her to change that belief or instinct. If the table thinks it's okay, the player may go ahead and change the belief/instinct to something he feels would see more usage. However, the player does not receive any FP for this belief change.

how spells interact with beliefs
- any spell/power that can change a character's alignment/alter their memory/change their personality/alters their disposition can also be used to change a character's belief or instinct. The character is entitled to any saves/resistance just they normally should. If the change is temporary, so is the belief change.


What do FPs do?
- You may apply 1 FP prior to a roll to give it a +1 unnamed bonus to any one roll.
- You may spend 4 FP to re-roll a botched roll.
- You may spend 8 FP to just declare that you roll a 20 or max roll on the die. (we can play with the numbers as we go)

[Number 6]

Or, simply award EPs for role playing as well as for killing things and stealing things.

[Chronos]

Contrary to popular belief, D&D is one of the best systems out there for encouraging role playing. Why? Because D&D has so few rules for it. Roleplaying rules don't encourage roleplaying; they stifle it. If you can distil your character down to three beliefs and three instincts, then you don't have a character any more, you just have another set of numbers.

[elliott20]

except ironically, D&D is the one place where you'll hear the MOST complaint about roleplaying too. True, we don't want to restrict people's creativity. But fact of the matter is, when you have no actual mechanical incentive to roleplay well, you'll find people just won't bother.

Yes, I get it. A min/maxer is going to be a min/maxer in any system. Munchkins will exist in any system. But some systems, even with a few guidelines, can be conducive to encouraging people to try it out.

At what point does the belief system strive to restrict your roleplaying and reduce down to numbers? It's simply a guideline with a reward system built into it. And the judgement rules in place places the responsibility of judging a player's roleplaying on the other players. Again, it becomes a matter of guidelines.

If anything D&D itself is already guilty of trying to make character social interactions into numbers as is. Look at your diplomacy skill, your CHA score, your intimidation, your bluff skill, reactionary score, leadership, etc, etc, etc. D&D ALREADY does this in spades. How does asking your character to have some focus make this worse?

it's not like by writing down these beliefs, you're stuck with them. Resolving a belief allows you to change it. Having an in-game dramatic event allows you to change it. Hell, if you're not having fun with one, you can change it. and it's not like I'm suggesting people reduce their character down to beliefs. On the contrary, I'm suggesting people simply make what is important to their characters even more crystal clear.

[Istari]

I think this could also be a goo didea in order to improve what would be against their nature for the purposes of charm effects.

[Jimp]

Contrary to popular belief, D&D is one of the best systems out there for encouraging role playing. Why? Because D&D has so few rules for it. Roleplaying rules don't encourage roleplaying; they stifle it. If you can distil your character down to three beliefs and three instincts, then you don't have a character any more, you just have another set of numbers.

Agreed. Combat may be filled with rules and numbers, but roleplaying is still by and large entirely up to the players and DMs. It is one of the systems best attributes: providing a framework for roleplaying without strictly dictating how anyone roleplays.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Incentives to roleplay will work wonderfully for some groups, and it will fail miserably for others. For instance, depending on the campaign, the DM is going to be hard pressed to allow each character equal opportunity to work through their beliefs and instincts. Character A might be getting more mechanically-approved roleplay and, therefore, more FP than Character B, just because of the kind of adventure the DM wanted to run that session. Still, I'd see it as an interesting variant.

[elliott20]

Agreed. Combat may be filled with rules and numbers, but roleplaying is still by and large entirely up to the players and DMs. It is one of the systems best attributes: providing a framework for roleplaying without strictly dictating how anyone roleplays.

Well, like I said, the belief and instincts are only a guideline (that of which can be changed, like anything else) to reward players for the effort they put into looking for the most important things they believe is central to their character. This is not like picking feat and getting stuck with it for the rest of the character. At least, I don't feel it should be looked at that way.


Incentives to roleplay will work wonderfully for some groups, and it will fail miserably for others. For instance, depending on the campaign, the DM is going to be hard pressed to allow each character equal opportunity to work through their beliefs and instincts. Character A might be getting more mechanically-approved roleplay and, therefore, more FP than Character B, just because of the kind of adventure the DM wanted to run that session. Still, I'd see it as an interesting variant.
There is definitely merit in this criticism. Again, the game will only work if you have the capacity to work towards your goals/beliefs. But this seems to be a seperate issue.

That is, GM support. if a GM simply doesn't support the instinct and belief, or rather, doesn't support your character type, it won't work. Again, this is a comparison to the ranger's favored enemy ability. It's an ability entirely depending on the GM to work with him on this. Running with this comparison though, some might say that ability requires that the player understands what kind of campaign the GM runs first prior to picking their abilities. More empirically, the player needs to work with the GM on this.

The belief system is the same. It is entirely dependant on one very important step: communication. A player can't simply just write down beliefs and instincts independantly and expect them to work.

This is especially true to beliefs and goals that involve setting specific items. If your belief is something that is intrinsically antagonistic / esoteric / simply just never comes up, then you know that there is an obvious disconnect between what your GM and what you want.

Conversely, this system will also require that GMs be far more flexible with their plotlines and the more they want to railroad the storyline, the worse this will work, as this system does encourage action: action that the GM might not expect the players to do and might end up derailing his plot.

It requires a fundamental change in the way we see D&D adventure structure to make work.