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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I explained this upthread, twice, in posts you didn't respond to (not that you're required to, just pointing out that they seem to have been skipped). But I can do it again, I suppose.

If I'm engaged in skilled play as a priority as a player, I expect that the situation will not be changed based on maintaining a challenge or for any other reason than a direct consequence of my actions. As such, if I manage to use my resources and smart play such that I have made a challenge trivial, I expect that challenge will indeed be trivial. The only reasons it should not be is because of a clearly traceable consequence of a prior action of mine or hidden information that I could have discovered but failed to do so. If, instead, the GM just alters the challenge because they feel the story would be better served with this challenge no being trivial (and let's say this is a correct analysis -- trivializing this challenge would be a major anti-climax), then this directly conflicts with my skilled play. The GM is changing something not based on my play, but on some other metric that I cannot influence through play.

On the other hand, if I want a curated story, such that it is exciting, well paced, and has a fun/interesting/terrifying climax, then if the GM sudden stops adjusting the challenge to make this happen and I get dumped into a detailed dungeon crawl where my character dies because I didn't check that door for traps this time, well, I'm not going to be happy either.

Can you switch between these two? Sure, as I said, WotC AP tend to do this to a degree (although I'd argue 5e lacks certain structural things to really do skilled play without codifying things). However, there's a tension between these two -- you can't do them at the same time, and if you easily switch between them, you're unlikely to have happy players because the expectations vary so much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"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.

That's a valid view, but it rather completely discounts things like WotC APs, doesn't it? Those have a very different application of story. This definition of story is too narrow, and seems aimed at having your points be correct rather than be a useful definition of story. I'd call what you're calling story emergent stories or war stories -- they're the tale of what happened in play. Meanwhile, there's a whole host of other play that is very much not this, but rather a curated story where players are following the breadcrumbs and the GM is changing things on the fly to maintain pacing and plot points. If not story, what would you call this?

But, sure, with the definition that "story" is the expression of what happened in play, then that's not at odds with skilled play. Which has been said by others much earlier in the thread.

 

[Fenris-77]

Or you could assume that not every group is making choices about some kind of overall emergent story at all, which is also a very valid play style.

 

[iserith]

That's a valid view, but it rather completely discounts things like WotC APs, doesn't it? Those have a very different application of story. This definition of story is too narrow, and seems aimed at having your points be correct rather than be a useful definition of story. I'd call what you're calling story emergent stories or war stories -- they're the tale of what happened in play. Meanwhile, there's a whole host of other play that is very much not this, but rather a curated story where players are following the breadcrumbs and the GM is changing things on the fly to maintain pacing and plot points. If not story, what would you call this?

But, sure, with the definition that "story" is the expression of what happened in play, then that's not at odds with skilled play. Which has been said by others much earlier in the thread.

WotC APs should be discounted in my view, but mostly because I don't think they are well-designed. I would refer to those as plot-based adventures by and large. What emerges from the PCs following the plot is the "story." Not my cup of tea as DM, but I'll play in them.

As for "my" definition of "story," I claim no ownership of the idea as it did not originate with me. I'll disagree with you that it's too narrow. Perhaps it simply doesn't fit neatly with certain posters' preconceived ideas like the definitely-not-Forge-waffle "skilled play" or whatever other divisive categorizations are served up and gatekeeped in this thread. Definitions which in my view point to a conflict that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. Maybe we can refer to these words as Enworld pancakes.

What I take serious issue with, however, is suggesting that I'm using this definition of "story" - which I've maintained consistently for years on this forum and others - as a way to make my points in this discussion "be correct." Rather than risk enduring what amounts to assertions of bad faith from someone I normally think rather highly of, I'll leave you and the rest to enjoy your pancakes.

 

[iserith]

Or you could assume that not every group is making choices about some kind of overall emergent story at all, which is also a very valid play style.

One last since this was posted while I was typing: I don't make this assumption. I'm speaking of my group alone. I have not called into question the validity of other play styles either.

 

[Fenris-77]

One last since this was posted while I was typing: I don't make this assumption. I'm speaking of my group alone. I have not called into question the validity of other play styles either.

I wasn't really suggesting that you were. However, lots of groups eschew emergent group story as a goal, one way or another. In many cases this is in favour of intersecting character stories, which is a different beast altogether.

 

[Maxperson]

Once again, you’re looking to an opposition (in this case perhaps a theoretical one) instead of the more obvious question a prospective player might have: “what’s the point of playing this game at all? What are we supposed to DO?”

Like it’s taken for granted or doesn’t warrant an explanation to anyone.

I really don't think it does warrant an explanation. I mean, pretty much every game made has fun and enjoyment as the goal. It wasn't as if I didn't think to have fun and enjoy prior editions of D&D and then had a sudden epiphany once I read the 5e rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

WotC APs should be discounted in my view, but mostly because I don't think they are well-designed. I would refer to those as plot-based adventures by and large. What emerges from the PCs following the plot is the "story." Not my cup of tea as DM, but I'll play in them.

I think there's a difference between not enjoying them and saying they shouldn't be considered as examples of valid 5e play.

As for "my" definition of "story," I claim no ownership of the idea as it did not originate with me.

Oh, where did it originate? It would be a rather shocking revelation to me if this was actually presented in the 5e rules this way. As it is, it just says that the GM and players work together to create an exciting story. That doesn't require it to be an emergent story.

I'll disagree with you that it's too narrow. Perhaps it simply doesn't fit neatly with certain posters' preconceived ideas like the definitely-not-Forge-waffle "skilled play" or whatever other divisive categorizations are served up and gatekeeped in this thread. Definitions which in my view point to a conflict that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. Maybe we can refer to these words as Enworld pancakes.

Well, that went very strange very quickly. I mean, I've already said that I don't like the Forge, either, but here it is being used to dismiss an argument as if "Forge-waffle" is a magic term that means it can be discarded. I mean, games like B/X codified skilled play. This discussion has been around for as long as RPGs have been a thing. Jokes about 10' poles and henchmen are tied to this. This isn't some new theory from a site you dislike, and cavalierly dismissing it just looks silly and childish.

And the conflict does exist. It exists in my experience and my play. Unless you'd care to add "liar" to the Forge-waffle? I mean, you're already defining "story" in a way that supports your play but discounts other play.

What I take serious issue with, however, is suggesting that I'm using this definition of "story" - which I've maintained consistently for years on this forum and others - as a way to make my points in this discussion "be correct." Rather than risk enduring what amounts to assertions of bad faith from someone I normally think rather highly of, I'll leave you and the rest to enjoy your pancakes.

No, the insistence on using it in a way that's confusing is what I'm talking about being stubbornly difficult. We just had a discussion about the meaning of "story" and you didn't clarify you continued use of it -- I had to guess you had stuck with your prior definition and had done so in a way as to be both stubborn -- borne out here -- and confusing -- which it is. I'm fine if you want to use your personal definition of "story," just call it out as such.

And I make that point that it's your personal definition because it completely rules out any consideration of other valid modes of play that use "story" differently. I can't have "story" as part of a WotC AP? I can't have "story" as part of my Big Plot homebrew? I can't have "story" as part of my pacing or planning for a game? See, your definition leaves valid uses out in the cold. And these are small or niche uses, they're part and parcel of some of the best selling RPG products on the market, whether you like them or not.

So, maybe you've used that definition for years -- fine, good, okay. It's not well matched to the general use of the term, so if you're going to stick to it in a discussion where such distinctions are important, it's on you and not everyone else to make the clarification. Otherwise you're being intentionally confusing. Which, to be clear, you're absolutely welcome to do -- there's no requirement that a poster not be confusing.

 

[Maxperson]

That need not be true. The primary reason to play can be the experience, and the tedious tropes of linear story-telling may be set aside in favour of non-linear, dynamic, interactive story-telling.

Sure, but for experience to to be the reason you want to play it, generally you want to have fun and enjoy that experience. And some people really enjoy linear story-telling.

Saying the goal(win condition) of D&D is fun and excitement is a platitude. It's wasted space.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you’re assuming “conflict” as some sort of collision of different priorities, which isn’t exactly what anyone is saying.

The placing of one goal avove another as a priority implies that they are in conflict. By conflict, we mean that they cannot both happen. To use your example, you cannot both allow the ambulance to speed on its way AND make it to work on time.

It’s one or the other.

Why? Why can't I just increase my speed a bit more than I was doing and make it to work on time anyway? I've worked in jobs where I've had to prioritize multiple time sensitive projects and have completed them all. Prioritizing two things doesn't mean that you have a dichotomy where if one succeeds, the other must fail.