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

[Bawylie]

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.

That you want them to be mutually exclusive does not actually make them mutually exclusive.

That you don’t want to do them at the same time does not mean they cannot be done at the same time.

Unless, of course, you choose to define the terms such that they conflate components of a role-playing game with modes of play. In which case, we’re having the Narrative Stance vs Simulationist Stance debate but with more words. As @iserith points out, that’s EnWorld pancakes.

Ultimately I do not believe that a problem exists that accepts a set of solutions (A) or a set of solutions (B) that excludes some blend of A&B, inherently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me they never are, at least not as the OP wrote it.

"1) Rulings Not Rules (not just action resolution mediation...this also includes following rules/ignoring rules/changing rules in the pursuit of a memorable story and a fun time) + GM as Lead Storyteller (a Role and the mandate afforded that role to ensure a memorable is told at the table and people have "fun.")"

I don't ignore or change rules in pursuit of story. I will change or ignore rules when they don't make sense for a situation. And when I don't like the rules. And to me, Rulings over Rules is primarily for adjudicating all the holes and vagueness written into 5e. They've created a system where you have to engage in rulings, rather than writing rules for those situations.

I never experience a conflict between the two, let alone a situation where I have to prioritize one where the other would fail.

Never? Wow.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, except that as play priorities, skilled play and curated story are actually pretty mutually exclusive. Sure, we can waffle about a spectrum, but it's it not much of one, they aren't compatible ideas really. Neither is good or bad, batter or worse, but that doesn't mean you can have both, like they're cake and ice cream or something.

 

[Manbearcat]

Can you explain how allowing the rest ruins the story?

I'm not sure that I fully understand the choices as presented.

I don’t know that it would.

But the risk it runs is unfulfilling anticlimax for the rest of a dungeon run and/or BBEG combat if the rest of the dungeon/BBEG fight is “tuned” for a group that has been resource-ablated. A 17th level group with a their Wizard and Cleric with half their spells is profoundly less potent/capable than the same group fully recharged, loaded out with insight into what comes next, and big guns locked and loaded.

The first group is going to have a different arc for the rest of their dungeon crawl/BBEG combat than the second group.

Whether it’s anticlimax or fist pumps and chest bumps will depend upon the group (hence the OP question).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, except that as play priorities, skilled play and curated story are actually pretty mutually exclusive. Sure, we can waffle about a spectrum, but it's it not much of one, they aren't compatible ideas really. Neither is good or bad, batter or worse, but that doesn't mean you can have both, like they're cake and ice cream or something.

I asked it earlier and no one really responded, so i’ll repeat it and see what you say Fenris; what does skilled play mean in 5E?

I think some comments have touched on it, but I don’t know if we’re really established what it means. @Manbearcat describes one instance of it in the OP if a party being able to time a long rest prior to a major confrontation.

So that’s one example, but what are others? I feel like “skilled play” as it’s typically classified has more to do with B/X or maybe 1E D&D, and is primarily about loadouts for gear and spell choice and the like. And of course puzzle solving.

What are some skilled play examples in 5E in your opinion?

 

[Maxperson]

Never? Wow.

Never. It can't be, because #1 isn't a priority as the OP describes it. My group has a fantastic time without story being implemented in that manner.

 

[Maxperson]

I asked it earlier and no one really responded, so i’ll repeat it and see what you say Fenris; what does skilled play mean in 5E?

I think some comments have touched on it, but I don’t know if we’re really established what it means. @Manbearcat describes one instance of it in the OP if a party being able to time a long rest prior to a major confrontation.

So that’s one example, but what are others? I feel like “skilled play” as it’s typically classified has more to do with B/X or maybe 1E D&D, and is primarily about loadouts for gear and spell choice and the like. And of course puzzle solving.

What are some skilled play examples in 5E in your opinion?

Skilled play in 5e is the same as in any other edition. The players use their ability to minimize failure/danger and/or maximize success. Tossing a rope into the blackness in the mouth of the statue in case it's a portal or sphere of annihilation or something in order to check it out.

 

[Manbearcat]

I asked it earlier and no one really responded, so i’ll repeat it and see what you say Fenris; what does skilled play mean in 5E?

I think some comments have touched on it, but I don’t know if we’re really established what it means. @Manbearcat describes one instance of it in the OP if a party being able to time a long rest prior to a major confrontation.

So that’s one example, but what are others? I feel like “skilled play” as it’s typically classified has more to do with B/X or maybe 1E D&D, and is primarily about loadouts for gear and spell choice and the like. And of course puzzle solving.

What are some skilled play examples in 5E in your opinion?

"Solving the NPC puzzle" in the Social Conflict mechanics (that are basically an instantiation of Wheel of Fortune) to get the NPC to help you.

* Skillfully suss out one of the NPC's IBFTs to leverage.

* Leverage it to get Advantage on your Charisma check.

* Marshal resources for the Charisma check.

* Get NPC to help you.


I've said it before, but its probably the best designed piece of system architecture in 5e. Yes, there are plenty of games that have better Social Conflict mechanics but (a) these hew to Classic D&D's dungeon crawl archetype (they basically work like a "social crawl" where you're trying to solve a dungeon room puzzle) so they're coherent in their design framework and (b) they interact with the rest of the system fairly well.

Its really a damn shame that so many 5e players don't use them/ignore them.

 

[Fenris-77]

I asked it earlier and no one really responded, so i’ll repeat it and see what you say Fenris; what does skilled play mean in 5E?

I think some comments have touched on it, but I don’t know if we’re really established what it means. @Manbearcat describes one instance of it in the OP if a party being able to time a long rest prior to a major confrontation.

So that’s one example, but what are others? I feel like “skilled play” as it’s typically classified has more to do with B/X or maybe 1E D&D, and is primarily about loadouts for gear and spell choice and the like. And of course puzzle solving.

What are some skilled play examples in 5E in your opinion?

That's a loaded question there boyo! The more mechanics in play the less often skilled play is a useful descriptor (please, feel free, general reading populace, to ignore the loading of the word skill there, thanks). There's a scale in play here that takes some breaking down, and the results don't describe one gaming table, just a range of possibilities.

So, here goes - the goal of skilled play is for the players to be able to flex their creativity and problem solving (mostly) outside of rolling for effect X. Let's talk about the negative image first, just to make the positive easier to see. 5e has a lot of bells and whistles. It's perfectly possible (and fine) to run through whole sessions without doing anything but using spells and abilities as described in the rules to overcome obstacles. Obviously that's wrapped in some role playing, but there's no real movement outside the mechanics. An obstacle is presented, and abilities are consulted, rolled, and applied until the obstacle is overcome.

In a less mechanical environment, one where the solution to obstacles isn't so much a matter of apply skill or ability A, the player instead has to declare action X, wherein an attempt to overcome the obstacle is put in play but that is not reliant on skill or mechanic A. So player creativity and level of engagement with the diegetic gamestate is pushed to the front, above particular mechanical solutions.

Obviously, those are the extremes, and 5E, while it tends to the first, isn't entirely defined by it. I would contend that skilled play, in terms of 5E, is far more about the table approach than it is about the system. 5E can certainly trend the second way when players and GM are all playing with that as a desired gaming outcome, but it does take a certain level of commitment from the table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That you want them to be mutually exclusive does not actually make them mutually exclusive.

That you don’t want to do them at the same time does not mean they cannot be done at the same time.

Unless, of course, you choose to define the terms such that they conflate components of a role-playing game with modes of play. In which case, we’re having the Narrative Stance vs Simulationist Stance debate but with more words. As @iserith points out, that’s EnWorld pancakes.

Ultimately I do not believe that a problem exists that accepts a set of solutions (A) or a set of solutions (B) that excludes some blend of A&B, inherently.

You keep making this observation, but you're not backing it up except to say you can do it. I don't see how. Please elucidate. How can I both want my play to be the determiner in how a scenario plays out AND want the GM to manage that scenario so that it has proper pacing and challenge? I mean, the former says it's about my play while the latter says it's about the GM modifying things regardless of my play, right? These things are in contention.

Now, what I think you might be going for is that this contention might be balanced for a given table -- that there's an amount of "my play determines things" that's sufficient and also an amount of "the GM will manage play to produce proper pacing, challenge, and climatic excitement." Sure, but you're not mixing these but balancing them -- you can't be doing one while you're doing the other, it's either/or. I've already said this can be done, pointing to WotC APs, which have interesting swap points between modes of play in them. Take Curse of Strahd, as I believe that's already been used in this thread. Curse has a huge amount of pacing balancing going on alongside challenge balancing. If you run this as presented, players will wander in certain parts of the sandbox until they're tough enough to start wandering other parts at which time they'll be pointed there. Yet, there's no real way to determine what area you're in using skilled play -- scouting doesn't really work and divinations are off the table and NPCs are unreliable sources of information. You're really relying on the GM to point you in the right direction. But, once you've arrived at a location of interest, the game swaps back to semi-skilled play imperatives -- maps are provided and well keyed with information. DCs are set. Bits of interest are set. The players can absolutely engage in these areas with skilled play. And then it's back to story management.

The final fight with Strahd is mostly story management, though -- the circumstances of the final showdown will largely be up to the GM and not what the players have accomplished.

So, yeah, sure, you can mix and match, and even come up with something that works and is coherent, but it's by swapping, not by merging the two approaches.