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

[clearstream]

When I used to play 5-player five hundred, only one of the five players could win. That didn't mean there were no win conditions. Nor did it mean that the game was fun only if I won. I've also played MtG with many players (6? 8?) at the table, and probably never won (I'm not a particularly good MtG player) but there were win conditions, and it was fun.

But as @chaochou has posted, games like five hundred and MtG are structured around win conditions, and playing to win. Combat in D&D is much the same in this respect.

Were 5e only combat, then this would be worth debating. As it stands, we are speaking of a pawn "winning" because it successfully moved one square orthogonally. (Not sure if that is a good analogy, but it came to mind!)

Are you familiar with the RPGs I've mentioned that I think do not have win conditions? Do you have a view on whether I'm right about them?

Seeing as I don't agree with you about 5e, I would prefer to start there.

 

[prabe]

And then what I'm seeing, as in the other quotes above, is that we preserve story imperatives not by changing some basic techniques - eg like who gets to frame scenes; who gets to manage resource recovery; etc - all of which involve abandoning "naturalism; but rather by doubling down on the GM's authority over unrevealed backstory. In the context of the OP I think that is absolutely what @Manbearcat would consider a strong favouring of storytelling over skilled play priorities.

I dunno about that. I've seen more responses saying there wasn't any conflict--or that by playing skillfully the players were choosing what the story was about--than I have prioritizing storytelling. Even those who've seen a conflict have, that I've seen from the posts, tended to land on the side of letting the skilled play change the expected story.

If the game is not well-designed, or generates consequences in actual operation that aren't intended or foreseen by the designers, then we're in another realm. [...] In 5e this might happen if players are able to exercise so much control over scene framing and the rest cycle (eg via legacy magical effects that haven't been sufficiently analysed/rewritten) that the sorts of control the GM has to exercise over the fiction in order to preserve story imperatives become so ludicrous or obviously artificial that the whole point of the "naturalistic" approach is undermined.

I think this is a matter more of scenario design than game design, but there's enough overlap that it's probably not worth much argument. It's also probably more of a problem if the DM takes "Lead Storyteller Imperative" overly literally, and believes they are responsible for the whole story as opposed to just the scenario.

 

[pemerton]

Were 5e only combat, then this would be worth debating. As it stands, we are speaking of a pawn "winning" because it successfully moved one square orthogonally. (Not sure if that is a good analogy, but it came to mind!)

It's a terrible analogy. A game of chess cannot consist in one move of one pawn.

Seeing as I don't agree with you about 5e, I would prefer to start there.

So I take it that you're not familiar with Wuthering Heights or The Dying Earth RPGs?

 

[Campbell]

There is a massive difference between caring about the game's narrative and a storytelling imperative. Curation involves more than simply being emotionally invested in how things turn out. It involves actively letting story outcomes drive your decision making process. This is at odds with skilled play as a player because in a skilled play environment you are supposed to be advocating for your character in order to achieve victory for the group (defeating the adventure or in Classic D&D getting that sweet treasure). As a GM it can be at odds with skilled play (at run time) because once the challenge is set you are meant to act as a referee and play the world with integrity. When you try to weave things together towards satisfying narrative outcomes you are essentially undermining the environment and feedback mechanisms for good play. If I'm looking for a game that rewards skilled play it is essential that victories are earned and not given. I often do care somewhat about the overarching narrative, but it should not be prioritized in the gameplay decision making process of either the GM or the other players if we are really pushing for skilled play.

I play in a D&D game where the storytelling imperative absolutely is the priority for everyone at the table. It's a great experience, but it does not provide anywhere near the same sort of fun you get from Moldvay or even Torchbearer played straight. Instead it provides a different sort of fun.

 

[pemerton]

I dunno about that. I've seen more responses saying there wasn't any conflict--or that by playing skillfully the players were choosing what the story was about--than I have prioritizing storytelling. Even those who've seen a conflict have, that I've seen from the posts, tended to land on the side of letting the skilled play change the expected story.

I haven't tabulated, but a lot of posters talk about the BBEG being able to reinforce etc during the time of the rest.

 

[clearstream]

It's a terrible analogy. A game of chess cannot consist in one move of one pawn.

While 5e campaigns can consist of one combat?

So I take it that you're not familiar with Wuthering Heights or The Dying Earth RPGs?

I have not played either. I have read Wuthering Heights. It is silent on win cons. If one believes it is a game, and believes it has no win cons, then perforce one believes games need not have win cons. On the other hand, if one believes games must have win cons, then Wuthering Heights is not a game.

Do you count Wuthering Heights as a game?

 

[chaochou]

If we are so flexible as what counts as winning, then - perhaps surprisingly - this "simple truth" becomes less clear. Once any goal I set myself counts as winning, I might set any goal including not winning.

You've moved the goalposts. You are not free to define winning in Chess or Dune, so your line of reasoning was flawed. You've now just tried to talk your way through that without accepting that it was rubbish.

Thankfully I'm not familiar with griefers in MMOs as a) I don't play them and b) I don't associate with losers. But in any event that is a degenerate form of non-play. They are not playing a game, they are attempting to prevent others from doing so. It's like claiming that a crowd pitch invasion is a form of football. The stuff about Assassin's Creed is similarly pointless.

I tend to associate this kind of anti-analysis with people who are desperate for their own gameplay not to be subject to scrutiny. That's invariably because their claims about it don't stand up to scrutiny. It's always the illusionists who want to create this kind of fog.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a massive difference between caring about the game's narrative and a storytelling imperative. Curation involves more than simply being emotionally invested in how things turn out. It involves actively letting story outcomes drive your decision making process.

And I claim that every GM does this. Some may do it more, some may do it less, but it is impossible to not do it at all. So at most it is a continuum, not a binary.

This is at odds with skilled play as a player because in a skilled play environment you are supposed to be advocating for your character in order to achieve victory for the group (defeating the adventure or in Classic D&D getting that sweet treasure). As a GM it can be at odds with skilled play (at run time) because once the challenge is set you are meant to act as a referee and play the world with integrity. When you try to weave things together towards satisfying narrative outcomes you are essentially undermining the environment and feedback mechanisms for good play.

Again, not necessarily. You can just make a best possible 'story' with the elements you happen to end up with.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I haven't tabulated, but a lot of posters talk about the BBEG being able to reinforce etc during the time of the rest.

I would call that Arguing the Example: OP's case is actually a weird thing to see in play (worth noting by itself), but that sort of thing (following the Rules as Agreed would derail the Story Structure) is a thing that can possibly happen. The poll question asked "If following the rules would torpedo the story, do you follow the rules or break them to save the story?"

The majority stick with the rules, and try to salvage the story within them. A not-insignificant minority would save the story. Neither is wrong, but it tells us something about the active users of this forum.

However, going back to your point - the fact that a lot of people (myself included) don't see this as a conflict that actually comes up in 5e, despite being hypothetically more prone to it than other games, is noteworthy. At least if you see the possibility of it as a problem. If it never happens at your table, is it really a bug you need to fix?

 

[billd91]

If it never happens at your table, is it really a bug you need to fix?

oooo, around here, them's fighting words.