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

[Ovinomancer]

The skill, such as it is, in my game would then be threading the needle so that you don't have to choose one over the other. Make the skillful choice that is fun, exciting, and memorable as player and DM. And thinking back on past play experience, including last night's session, we don't ever seem to observe this tension. This is why I think this discussion mostly exists in forums and not at tables. Or at least not at my table. I'll take people at their word if they are agonizing over this conflict at their own tables.

Right, I see that, you're using your own set of definitions such that it's "skilled" to choose actions to promote the story. This doesn't align with any other larger use definition of skilled play, though. Interestingly, your game setup is very aligned with the broader skilled play definition, it's just your final assertion that your primary goal of play is to subsume traditional skilled play to curate a better story. No problems with that, it's a great way to play. It just doesn't align with any broader definition of skilled play.

And, no, that's not Forge waffle, which I generally dislike as well.

 

[Manbearcat]

It’s not a given that every game is about fun.

Many games are about skill or competition. Some are even work for the participants to create entertainment for observers. Fun may be a byproduct, but not necessarily the objective.

Some games are, by design, psychological tests. Some are strategic assessments of forces or equipment. Fun, in that case, is neither anticipated nor designed for (but might still happen, or not).

Ok, psychological tests are “games?”

Let’s see how far down this rabbit hole goes.

* Tests to measure cognitive capacity or deficiency are games?

* Placement tests are games?

* Tests to measure neurological impairment are games?

* Tests to falsify or verify aspects of Theory of Mind are games?

* Tests to measure physical fitness are games?

* Tests to measure physical impairment are games?

---

I don’t know how far down this rabbit hole goes, but let me just agree with you for a moment (I don’t, but let me do so).

Removing all of the above from the subset of “games”...(ALSO remove the multiple times I GM's 5e for a group of teenagers left in the lurch because their dad-as-GM flaked on them because I did not GM those games for fun...I did not have fun...I GMed them as charity)...how many games are left...in all the world (the history of the world really)...which have “fun” at the very top of their taxonomical hierarchy of purpose for playing? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?


Related...aliens come to earth and ask you “what are humans?” My guess is your answer would NOT be “you guys probably know the single-called organism prokaryotes? You guys must have those back home? Yeah, We’re basically that.”

 

[iserith]

Right, I see that, you're using your own set of definitions such that it's "skilled" to choose actions to promote the story. This doesn't align with any other larger use definition of skilled play, though. Interestingly, your game setup is very aligned with the broader skilled play definition, it's just your final assertion that your primary goal of play is to subsume traditional skilled play to curate a better story. No problems with that, it's a great way to play. It just doesn't align with any broader definition of skilled play.

And, no, that's not Forge waffle, which I generally dislike as well.

To be clear, I would say it's skilled to both make good choices to achieve character goals (e.g. overcome a challenge) while at the same time making sure those choices are fun for everyone and contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. To disregard the latter concern is to put at risk achieving the goals of play. This would then, of course, necessitate defining what a given group finds fun and what kinds of stories they find exciting and memorable.

I think most people would look at my game and arrive at the same conclusion you did upthread. That's certainly how I design it - an adventure location, fully-prepped, structured where it needs to be to ensure fair play. Present it to the players without changing it on the fly (except as it may make sense after the PCs interfere such as with a faction's responses) and see what happens, acting as an arbiter between the players and the rules. But at no point, for example, could I as DM narrate the result of the adventurers' actions in a way that isn't fun, exciting, and memorable and, even so, this takes nothing away from the difficulty which incentivizes the players to play skillfully. And given the full range of choices a player can make, there is always something that is both optimal (or at least very good) that is also aligned with the goals of play. For anyone to suggest otherwise is simply admitting to a failure of imagination while playing a game based on make-believe.

I'm about to abandon this conversation again for the reasons already stated, but perhaps a more clear definition of "skilled play" would have been helpful from the outset instead of whatever it was we got in that original post.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think using CR as an example (likely unintentionally) introduces a flaw in your argument.

As I understand it, CR isn’t a window into a home game - it’s a show. As a show, it’s chief purpose is to entertain an audience. To that end, they’ve apparently prioritized “a good story” over most other (but certainly not all) concerns.

Doing that would inevitably create situations that many GMs would look at and think “Well, hang on, that’s not what I would do. The rules say XYZ. Should I be ditching the rules to do it the way CR does it?” Sometimes, yeah for sure. Sometimes definitely not. But the lens with respect to CR is that it’s a show, and therefore it weighs its watchability greater than most other concerns. You and I don’t have to do that. Our audiences are our players and ourselves. And that’s completely and totally different, even if the trappings look identical.

I'm sorry, I don't follow how when I pointed to Critical Role as a game that displays a lot of story curation that pointing out that it's intent is to tell a good story somehow defeats this because it's... what, too correct? The claim that it's not a good example of what I'm talking about because we don't broadcast our games for fame and profit seems hollow -- so what? You don't have to broadcast your game to curate your stories.

I mean, look at the WotC APs are set up -- there's so much advice on how to adjust to maintain the story and the pacing. Also the fact that there's a plot your have to walk through. WotC APs are very much about curation of story. The fun thing is that you can run parts of them very much in a skilled play paradigm (the dungeons mostly) but then zoom out to story curation between those parts. You can't really do both at the same time, though, which is the point of the OP's question -- in your game, which typically gets the upper hand?

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be clear, I would say it's skilled to both make good choices to achieve character goals (e.g. overcome a challenge) while at the same time making sure those choices are fun for everyone and contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. To disregard the latter concern is to put at risk achieving the goals of play. This would then, of course, necessitate defining what a given group finds fun and what kinds of stories they find exciting and memorable.

I think most people would look at my game and arrive at the same conclusion you did upthread. That's certainly how I design it - an adventure location, fully-prepped, structured where it needs to be to ensure fair play. Present it to the players without changing it on the fly (except as it may make sense after the PCs interfere such as with a faction's responses) and see what happens, acting as an arbiter between the players and the rules. But at no point, for example, could I as DM narrate the result of the adventurers' actions in a way that isn't fun, exciting, and memorable and, even so, this takes nothing away from the difficulty which incentivizes the players to play skillfully. And given the full range of choices a player can make, there is always something that is both optimal (or at least very good) that is also aligned with the goals of play. For anyone to suggest otherwise is simply admitting to a failure of imagination while playing a game based on make-believe.

I'm about to abandon this conversation again for the reasons already stated, but perhaps a more clear definition of "skilled play" would have been helpful from the outset instead of whatever it was we got in that original post.

You're basically describing "don't be a dick" as skilled play, though. I don't disagree, don't be a dick is a high play agenda of mine as well. I don't think calling not being a dick "skilled play" really works, though.

As for clear definitions, I defined it clearly when I joined the thread -- it was the first thing I did because I saw a lot of confusion. So, sure, we agree there, but after that, what was the issue?

 

[iserith]

You're basically describing "don't be a dick" as skilled play, though. I don't disagree, don't be a dick is a high play agenda of mine as well. I don't think calling not being a dick "skilled play" really works, though.

As for clear definitions, I defined it clearly when I joined the thread -- it was the first thing I did because I saw a lot of confusion. So, sure, we agree there, but after that, what was the issue?

I think dickish behavior is probably just a subset of things a DM or player could do to cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. To go back to the original example, I don't think it's dickish to long rest ahead of the final battle and trounce the villain handily. I don't believe anyone in my group would believe that either (nor would a lot of the posters in this thread apparently). But then that just goes back to each individual group's definition of what is fun, exciting, and memorable.

Your post from upthread:

And, having said the above, a stand-out example of using 5e is a Skilled Play mode is how @iserith has described his online pick-up games. He uses a clearly stated, player facing adjudication method; has clear, leverageable table rules (eg, his Inspiration rules); and he sticks with location-based, heavy prep scenarios. It's a great example of how you can do Skilled Play in 5e.

Having caught up on this thread, I'd say there's a distinct issue with the understanding of Skilled Play in a lot of the responses. Skilled Play is when the scenario is pre-designed and play is leveraging the rules of the game to navigate the scenario to best effect. Usually additional fiction is generated via random means with clear triggers -- eg, if we spend too much time or make too much noise it will trigger a wandering monster check. In other words, the players leverage the game against the situation.

As you note, this is challenging for 5e as opposed to B/X. B/X has very clear rules for how long things take, integrated risk/reward structures, and is premised on players navigating the orepped dungeon. 5e lacks all of these, leaving it up to the GM. So, unless the GM is codifying rulings and making things more player facing (which you absolutely can do, from experience), it's hard to do Skilled Play well with 5e. You have to make some clear effort to do so.

5e is very much presented with GM curation of play as the expected mode.

I voted Story in the poll because that's how 5e works at my table. For Skilled Play, we scratch that itch with Gloomhaven.

You have appropriately characterized what my games include, both online pickup games and most of my regular games. I say "most" because I will run the odd plot-based game, but I regret doing it every time and kick myself for it. Then I drink away those memories only to fall into the same trap a couple years later.

Anyway, as far as I can tell from what you say in these posts, I'm engaged in "skilled play."

 

[Bawylie]

Ok, psychological tests are “games?”

Let’s see how far down this rabbit hole goes.

* Tests to measure cognitive capacity or deficiency are games?

* Placement tests are games?

* Tests to measure neurological impairment are games?

* Tests to falsify or verify aspects of Theory of Mind are games?

* Tests to measure physical fitness are games?

* Tests to measure physical impairment are games?

---

I don’t know how far down this rabbit hole goes, but let me just agree with you for a moment (I don’t, but let me do so).

Removing all of the above from the subset of “games”...(ALSO remove the multiple times I GM's 5e for a group of teenagers left in the lurch because their dad-as-GM flaked on them because I did not GM those games for fun...I did not have fun...I GMed them as charity)...how many games are left...in all the world (the history of the world really)...which have “fun” at the very top of their taxonomical hierarchy of purpose for playing? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?


Related...aliens come to earth and ask you “what are humans?” My guess is your answer would NOT be “you guys probably know the single-called organism prokaryotes? You guys must have those back home? Yeah, We’re basically that.”

Some psychological hypothesis have been tested via games. Games that were designed to test specific phenomena.


I didn’t say all of them are games. Just that some tests were designed as games.

by way of example:

Werewolf Game​

Give each student a piece of paper which tells them if they are a werewolf or a villager and to keep their identity a secret even if they have to lie. Tell the students to close their eyes for "nighttime" and tell the werewolves to open their eyes and silently choose a villager to kill. The students then open their eyes, find out who has been killed by the werewolves and discuss which werewolf deserves a dirt nap. This game is repeated until the villagers have hunted down all the werewolves or the werewolves kill all the villagers. The object of this game is to understand lying, group decision making and the mob mentality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think dickish behavior is probably just a subset of things a DM or player could do to cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. To go back to the original example, I don't think it's dickish to long rest ahead of the final battle and trounce the villain handily. I don't believe anyone in my group would believe that either (nor would a lot of the posters in this thread apparently). But then that just goes back to each individual group's definition of what is fun, exciting, and memorable.

I don't understand the connection you're making here. Of course that's not dickish -- who said it might be?

You seem to want room to say that players should make the best choices to succeed at the challenge but also should make some nebulous call for the story when it applies. I read that as don't be a dick -- don't make moves that intentionally cause others to not have fun. But, I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what you're calling the story that players should be looking out for -- given past discussion I'm very unsure that it's any preconception of how things should play out, so I'm not sure how I, as a player, could make a call to better support such a thing other than not being a dick. Should I make a call to do something I think would make for a funny tale after play but that utterly screws the current challenge? I guess that's the clearest question I have for you about your table (I don't want your guesses about other tables).

Your post from upthread:




You have appropriately characterized what my games include, both online pickup games and most of my regular games. I say "most" because I will run the odd plot-based game, but I regret doing it every time and kick myself for it. Then I drink away those memories only to fall into the same trap a couple years later.

Anyway, as far as I can tell from what you say in these posts, I'm engaged in "skilled play."

I had thought so, but I'm unclear how making choices to make the story better works with this. These things conflict. Unless we're back to you saying that making choices for a better story is skilled play, in which case I feel that there's a stubborn insistence on making this difficult.

 

[Bawylie]

I'm sorry, I don't follow how when I pointed to Critical Role as a game that displays a lot of story curation that pointing out that it's intent is to tell a good story somehow defeats this because it's... what, too correct? The claim that it's not a good example of what I'm talking about because we don't broadcast our games for fame and profit seems hollow -- so what? You don't have to broadcast your game to curate your stories.

I mean, look at the WotC APs are set up -- there's so much advice on how to adjust to maintain the story and the pacing. Also the fact that there's a plot your have to walk through. WotC APs are very much about curation of story. The fun thing is that you can run parts of them very much in a skilled play paradigm (the dungeons mostly) but then zoom out to story curation between those parts. You can't really do both at the same time, though, which is the point of the OP's question -- in your game, which typically gets the upper hand?

Ok - why can’t you do both? That’s the sticking point for me. The claim that you can’t rests on these two paradigms being inherently mutually exclusive. They are not. You can do both at the same time. It’s not a false dichotomy or a dichotomy of any kind.

 

[iserith]

I don't understand the connection you're making here. Of course that's not dickish -- who said it might be?

You seem to want room to say that players should make the best choices to succeed at the challenge but also should make some nebulous call for the story when it applies. I read that as don't be a dick -- don't make moves that intentionally cause others to not have fun. But, I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what you're calling the story that players should be looking out for -- given past discussion I'm very unsure that it's any preconception of how things should play out, so I'm not sure how I, as a player, could make a call to better support such a thing other than not being a dick. Should I make a call to do something I think would make for a funny tale after play but that utterly screws the current challenge? I guess that's the clearest question I have for you about your table (I don't want your guesses about other tables).

I had thought so, but I'm unclear how making choices to make the story better works with this. These things conflict. Unless we're back to you saying that making choices for a better story is skilled play, in which case I feel that there's a stubborn insistence on making this difficult.

"Story" in an RPG is emergent in my view, so you'd be making choices that makes said emergent story exciting and memorable. As I said a few posts above, given the sheer number of choices you could make even in a narrowly-defined context, there's always a choice to be made that is good enough to have a chance at overcoming the challenge and also contributes to an exciting, memorable story. (We're not talking about challenges that only have One True Solution, right? Because that's what I would consider bad design, and thus a separate issue.)

So, given that, I disagree that these things are in conflict.