D&D 5E Allow the Long Rest Recharge to Honor Skilled Play or Disallow it to Ensure a Memorable Story

[Benjamin Olson]

There is no correct answer here beyond the collective preferences of the group.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There is no correct answer here beyond the collective preferences of the group.

That is generally true of opinion polls like this one.

 

[Bawylie]

Wait, what? You say that priorities are, well, priorities because they have right of way, so to speak, but then say that two priorities cannot conflict because they both would have right of way? That's rather interesting logic, and I'm afraid it doesn't work.

Skilled play is absolutely at odd with GM curation of story. In the latter, the GM is altering the fiction to improve or channel play to meet specific story beats. Pacing is important, rising action, hitting the climax. These are part and parcel of GM curation of story. Watch an episode of Critical Role and this is what you see -- the GM curating the action so that the story is tight and engaging.

On the other hand, skilled play is antithetical to this manipulation by the GM. Here the GM is to be a neutral arbiter of the world, presenting it without making changes. Any reaction is a direct and clear result of specific party actions. This way, the players are always leveraging the rules and their resources to succeed. Any story that arises is incidental to play -- it's a second order result, not the primary reason for play. Instead the primary reason for play is to, well, win -- survive the dungeon, improve the PCs, and do it again.

These two things directly conflict. If the GM makes any changes for purposes of curating the story, those directly conflict with the player's ability to manage the fiction through skilled play -- because that change by the GM is not a direct result of the PCs actions, but is, instead, to counter them to create a specific result, usually one of pacing or to create a memorable climax.

There's a common refrain that the point of playing D&D is to create an exciting, memorable story. I believe @iserith often says this. However, there's a difference between finding that story though how the players decide to engage a prepared situation -- ie, the story is more of a war story -- and when the GM is actively curating that story during play by making changes to facilitate what the GM thinks makes for a better story.

Prioritizing literally puts things in order of importance- it’s right in the root “prior.” To prioritize is to organize the various interests in a hierarchy of importance.

Many things can be important (for example arriving to work, or ensuring ambulances can quickly get to hospitals) simultaneously. By assigning a priority to several important things, we avoid conflict.

urgency can temporarily inflate importance or move something up on a list of priorities. If I’m getting married tomorrow, that’s Very Important. But if there’s a kitchen fire right now, that would demand my immediate attention. The kitchen fire, by virtue of its urgency and danger, would become temporarily a greater priority than the pending wedding.

Everyone on this planet has to make decisions like these all the time. You can’t actually function without doing this. It’s such a routine part of life that you have to do many important things and most of them are never in conflict.

To insist that because a decision must be made regarding importance necessitates some wrought clothes-tearing agony over gamer priorities is nonsensical. It’s a dumb semantics argument.

(edit to remove/revise an extra word)

 

[Fenris-77]

Notably I said this is what I would consider an "ideal group" to pursue. Since the ideal itself is in writing on the very first page of the rules, right after the table of contents. I know for a fact that there are many people who don't even read that or think about it even if they have read it. They just do what they learned from their cousin or from a YouTube video or whatever and hopefully with some luck they stumble into a "win" when the session is fun for everyone and an exciting, memorable tale is told by playing. Often enough, they aren't so lucky. See any RPG forum for examples.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to play a game of Monopoly without trying to bankrupt any of my opponents. I know the game has a goal, but eh, why bother pursuing it?

Whether or not they read it isn't really the key, is it? Some people have other game experience, some people are influenced by various things like Youtube, some people want to play D&D like a video game, some people just don't read it, or just gloss it over. The fact that the book says X on page Y really isn't that illustrative. All your sarcasm to the contrary. It's not like the rules really push the game in that direction in any cohesive way. Anyway, I have yet to be convinced. Tell me more...

 

[Manbearcat]

Notably I said this is what I would consider an "ideal group" to pursue. Since the ideal itself is in writing on the very first page of the rules, right after the table of contents. I know for a fact that there are many people who don't even read that or think about it even if they have read it. They just do what they learned from their cousin or from a YouTube video or whatever and hopefully with some luck they stumble into a "wien" when the session is fun for everyone and an exciting, memorable tale is told by playing. Often enough, they aren't so lucky. See any RPG forum for examples.

Now if you're excuse me I'm going to play a game of Monopoly now without trying to bankrupt any of my opponents. I know the game has a goal, but eh, why bother pursuing it?

Setting the structured play and focused Win Con of Monopoly against the relatively unstructured play and infinitely malleable Win Con of 5e doesn't move many units with me.

I mean, this fetishizing of the organization of the words "exciting" and "memorable" and "story" as some kind of potent principle that constrains and guides play is...well, its something.

"Story" can mean be interpreted several different ways:

* (Generic) Intentful Narrative.

* Narrative arc with rising/falling action/climax and some configuration of (in)coherent themes and characters with dramatic needs (or not).

* Reminiscing with other people long after you experienced something.

* Stuff that incidentally happened as a byproduct of other stuff.

* Other things that are some combination of all of the above.


And I mean...what is the inverse of "exciting" and "memorable"? What is the alternative organizing principle that 5e boldly pushed back against?

Hey guys...lets make a game where the organizing principle is to have an utterly dull, completely forgettable, thing where nothing happens by way of intent or even incidentally. We'll call it "sleep without dreams" or something.

Bold choice 5e designers. Bold choice.

(That "organizing principle of play" is the most vanilla and malleable way of saying "know your audience, generate your own social contract, find your fun. (because we're terrified of another SKIP THE GATE GUARDS AND GET TO THE FUN scandal)." Which is exactly what @Campbell said it was; "curation"...because that is what it is. The rest of the game is where you'll find the actual design-work and figure out how this game hews to D&D of yore and how it differs from D&D of yore.)

 

[Bawylie]

.And I mean...what is the inverse of "exciting" and "memorable"? What is the alternative organizing principle that 5e boldly pushed back against?

Hey guys...lets make a game where the organizing principle is to have an utterly dull, completely forgettable, thing where nothing happens by way of intent or even incidentally. We'll call it "sleep without dreams" or something.

Bold choice 5e designers. Bold choice.

(

Why assume something only exists in opposition to something else?

and isn’t that just the root of the whole issue.

 

[iserith]

Whether or not they read it isn't really the key, is it? Some people have other game experience, some people are influenced by various things like Youtube, some people want to play D&D like a video game, some people just don't read it, or just gloss it over. The fact that the book says X on page Y really isn't that illustrative. All your sarcasm to the contrary. It's not like the rules really push the game in that direction in any cohesive way. Anyway, I have yet to be convinced. Tell me more...

It's on the group to use the tools provided (or some but not all or some that are modified to their preference) to create and play the game in pursuit of the goals of play in whatever way they think is best.

Setting the structured play and focused Win Con of Monopoly against the relatively unstructured play and infinitely malleable Win Con of 5e doesn't move many units with me.

I mean, this fetishizing of the organization of the words "exciting" and "memorable" and "story" as some kind of potent principle that constrains and guides play is...well, its something.

"Story" can mean be interpreted several different ways:

* (Generic) Intentful Narrative.

* Narrative arc with rising/falling action/climax and some configuration of (in)coherent themes and characters with dramatic needs (or not).

* Reminiscing with other people long after you experienced something.

* Stuff that incidentally happened as a byproduct of other stuff.

* Other things that are some combination of all of the above.


And I mean...what is the inverse of "exciting" and "memorable"? What is the alternative organizing principle that 5e boldly pushed back against?

Hey guys...lets make a game where the organizing principle is to have an utterly dull, completely forgettable, thing where nothing happens by way of intent or even incidentally. We'll call it "sleep without dreams" or something.

Bold choice 5e designers. Bold choice.

(That "organizing principle of play" is the most vanilla and malleable way of saying "know your audience, generate your own social contract, find your fun. (because we're terrified of another SKIP THE GATE GUARDS AND GET TO THE FUN scandal)." Which is exactly what @Campbell said it was; "curation"...because that is what it is. The rest of the game is where you'll find the actual design-work and figure out how this game hews to D&D of yore and how it differs from D&D of yore.)

Each group gets to decide for themselves what is fun for them and what constitutes an exciting, memorable story. What that is therefore is the goal of the game and, as the superordinate principle, it necessarily informs the choices the players and DMs make or else they risk "losing" at D&D. And why risk it? Orient oneself to what is fun, exciting, and memorable, whatever that means for one's group, and pursue it relentlessly at every turn. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Perhaps this is why I have no conflict going on at my table between skilled play and "curated" story.

 

[Bawylie]

It's on the group to use the tools provided (or some but not all or some that are modified to their preference) to create and play the game in pursuit of the goals of play in whatever way they think is best.


Each group gets to decide for themselves what is fun for them and what constitutes an exciting, memorable story. What that is therefore is the goal of the game and, as the superordinate principle, it necessarily informs the choices the players and DMs make or else they risk "losing" at D&D. And why risk it? Orient oneself to what is fun, exciting, and memorable, whatever that means for one's group, and pursue it relentlessly at every turn. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Perhaps this is why I have no conflict going on at my table between skilled play and "curated" story.

IDK man. You’re over there, existing. And I exist too, over here. Must mean we’re in conflict. After all, what you want in a game can’t be important without making what I want in a game unimportant. Right?

Wait, no that’s f%@&ing nonsense.

 

[Manbearcat]

Why assume something only exists in opposition to something else?

and isn’t that just the root of the whole issue.

I don't know what "root of the whole issue" you're imagining here.

There is no assumption of opposition in the post you quoted.

Its merely the inverse of the arrangement of words selected by the 5e designers when writing/editing their PHB. Its the alternative which should demonstrate pretty handily that the sentence is as milquetoast as it gets. Because no one would ever say the alternative. Its not quite the Kafka Trap of articulating an organizing principle of a game...buts its damn near it; "oh you must just prefer lack of excitement or lack of memorable things or lack of fun." No one would say that.

 

[Manbearcat]

Each group gets to decide for themselves what is fun for them and what constitutes an exciting, memorable story. What that is therefore is the goal of the game and, as the superordinate principle, it necessarily informs the choices the players and DMs make or else they risk "losing" at D&D. And why risk it? Orient oneself to what is fun, exciting, and memorable, whatever that means for one's group, and pursue it relentlessly at every turn. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Perhaps this is why I have no conflict going on at my table between skilled play and "curated" story.

That looks exactly like what I said. And exactly what @Campbell wrote; "Curate your experience." Or "figure out your table, develop your social contract, find your fun."

Where is the disagreement?