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

[Campbell]

But when setting up the situation you are caring about 'cool story' as in creating potential for engaging interactions and when describing things you probably try to describe things evocatively. This is creating cool story. Sure, it is not creating one specific cool story, but why would we want to do that in an RPG anyway? If I wanted specific story instead of one which is emergent I would just write a novel.

The sort of decisions we make when designing an engaging scenario are entirely different in nature to the sort of the decisions made during the course of play where the GM is putting their hand on the scale by manipulating the game in motion. Even then great care needs to be taken in scenario design that you are not funneling players toward making particular decisions. When you start making decisions about what players should do, who they should ally with, who the villain of the story is then you have moved to what I would call story advocacy.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it is something I try to actively avoid in the games I run.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've understood that to be conditional. I mean, if it's established in the fiction that he can, sure; but if it's not--or if it's specifically been established that he cannot (such as because the PCs destroyed his reinforcements)--then no.

Strahd came up, and I think it was @hawkeyefan who said Strahd's forces are undefined (or defined as effectively limitless) in the adventure. I think that's pretty crappy design--because it puts decisions as to what if any limits Strahd has on the DM--but that's really beside the point. If the PCs have a way of finding out what Strahd's limitations are, and they do, what happens if they choose to take a Long Rest needs to conform to that.

Purely as a question of definition: Am I arguing for what you've called "naturalism?"

I don't know if it's crappy design or not for the Curse of Strahd adventure to put some things into the GM's hands. Certainly if the GM were designing their own scenario that's whose hands such decisions would be in, so it seems reasonable. To make the resources at Strahd's disposal a bit vague and effectively limitless is likely in line with how many folks would GM in modern iterations of the game, particularly 5E. There are exceptions, I'm sure, but I doubt that most folks would design scenarios with ideas like "Strahd has 30 wolves at his command, 50 vistani, 5 vampire spawn, and 20 zombies" or some such.

I'm not saying that you cannot do so in a more specific scenario. But the one in Curse of Strahd is that the PCs are intruders into a land that is dominated by the vampire, and his resources are vast, and only so much can be done for players to strengthen their situation (primarily through finding specific items that can aid them in fighting Strahd). The scenario is very much about "what do you do to face a superior foe?" which is why I think it works as designed.

There would be other scenarios that are perhaps superficially similar (PCs are infiltrating a castle to fight a local tyrant) where the overwhelming odds are not really meant to be as much of a factor....where the tyrant in questions isn't a supernatural being who is one with the very land itself, but is just a mortal tyrant.....and in that kind of scenario, it absolutely may make sense to say "The Baron has 20 men at arms at his disposal, plus the high preist and 4 clerics from the church of Hextor" or some such.

It all depends on what the scenario calls for. Which is perhaps a bit different than what the last couple of pages have meant by "story" but there's clearly some overlap.

I mean, if I didn't want to be curating the story to at least some extent, I think 5E would be a pretty uninformed choice of game since it's very geared toward that. Most of the conflict in this thread kind of stems from that fact....5E is very much a GM driven game by default, however loudly people claim otherwise.

 

[chaochou]

No. You're absurdly equating the GM decisions being influenced by their idea of 'cool story' (which you cannot completely avoid as a human being) and using force. These are not even remotely the same thing.

I understand exactly along which axis GMs apply force and I can see which GMs do and which don't both from what they say and what they don't say.

I can tell the GM force / illusionists from a continent away.

 

[prabe]

I don't know if it's crappy design or not for the Curse of Strahd adventure to put some things into the GM's hands. Certainly if the GM were designing their own scenario that's whose hands such decisions would be in, so it seems reasonable. To make the resources at Strahd's disposal a bit vague and effectively limitless is likely in line with how many folks would GM in modern iterations of the game, particularly 5E. There are exceptions, I'm sure, but I doubt that most folks would design scenarios with ideas like "Strahd has 30 wolves at his command, 50 vistani, 5 vampire spawn, and 20 zombies" or some such.

Well, I guess I was getting at the thought that if the GM had written the adventure, he'd know what (if any) limitations he had in mind. If the GM knew the players were the sort to go all "combat as war" on the scenario and set out to remove Strahd's reinforcements before (if possible) ambushing Strahd, then I'd hope the GM would either have those limitations laid out or tell the players there were none.

(Again, I keep coming to the PCs needing to be able to make an intelligent, informed choice, which is something I'm 99+% sure you agree with. Don't mean to harp on it. Sorry.)

I'm not saying that you cannot do so in a more specific scenario. But the one in Curse of Strahd is that the PCs are intruders into a land that is dominated by the vampire, and his resources are vast, and only so much can be done for players to strengthen their situation (primarily through finding specific items that can aid them in fighting Strahd). The scenario is very much about "what do you do to face a superior foe?" which is why I think it works as designed.

There would be other scenarios that are perhaps superficially similar (PCs are infiltrating a castle to fight a local tyrant) where the overwhelming odds are not really meant to be as much of a factor....where the tyrant in questions isn't a supernatural being who is one with the very land itself, but is just a mortal tyrant.....and in that kind of scenario, it absolutely may make sense to say "The Baron has 20 men at arms at his disposal, plus the high preist and 4 clerics from the church of Hextor" or some such.

I do see the difference/s you're getting at. I think I'd prefer your latter scenario as a player, if only because it seems as though tactics/strategy would be more of a help, there (and I don't care much for Ravenloft, in general). That's taste/preference, though.

It all depends on what the scenario calls for. Which is perhaps a bit different than what the last couple of pages have meant by "story" but there's clearly some overlap.

I mean, if I didn't want to be curating the story to at least some extent, I think 5E would be a pretty uninformed choice of game since it's very geared toward that. Most of the conflict in this thread kind of stems from that fact....5E is very much a GM driven game by default, however loudly people claim otherwise.

Obviously the game can (and will) work differently for different people, but when I prep a session the most I do is write up what the situation is, and an instigating event. The rest of the story is all about feedback loops between players and setting and events. I guess it's possible to say I'm "curating story" by picking situations and instigating events, but it doesn't feel like that from inside. Maybe that's why some people claim 5E isn't as GM-driven as you seem to imply.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The sort of decisions we make when designing an engaging scenario are entirely different in nature to the sort of the decisions made during the course of play where the GM is putting their hand on the scale by manipulating the game in motion.

No not really. And the GM is always influencing the players, better accept it instead of pretending that you could be somehow an neutral automaton without intentions .

Even then great care needs to be taken in scenario design that you are not funneling players toward making particular decisions.

But you always do that to certain extent. When you design a scenario you have already decided to direct players toward that scenario and not something completely different. And every time you describe anything, you're influencing the players.

When you start making decisions about what players should do, who they should ally with, who the villain of the story is then you have moved to what I would call story advocacy.

There is no should. But you put the NPCs there to begin with. You have already limited their choice of enemies and allies. You decided the motivations of the NPCs; if you know your players, you will know which of them they are likely to oppose, which they're likely to agree with. You decide how to describe the NPCs, their attitude, their behaviours, what they say. You will probably have an idea what the player will find agreeable, and what they will not. You're influencing the players all the time, it is literally impossible to not do that.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it is something I try to actively avoid in the games I run.

I think it is misguided to think that you could somehow not direct the story, it is just a choice of doing it intentionally or subconsciously.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect you may not have heard an example that works for you because of your assumption of a win con. If you expected and insisted that the only interesting story was one with a serious fight, no example that sets aside that expectation and insistence will please you.

There's a host of issues here with how this is even framed -- you're guessing what I think and there's really only one such example, by @Crimson Longinus in the thread to begin with. But, the real issue is that you're entirely incorrect on the win condition argument.

The problem with your latest go assigning Skilled Play to a win condition is that the story imperative or story curation require a win condition as well. Both approaches are about HOW you get there, not that there is an assigned on. You can have skilled play with a player developed goal, just as you can have story curation towards a player developed goal. So, yes, you're halfway there in saying that a win condition is a necessary state of a moment of play -- there is a goal that play is moving towards in that moment (and which can be changed or refreshed) -- but incorrect to say that this is a fault of Skilled Play only. Skilled Play is a process, not an end result, the same as Story Curation (or Story Imperative) is a process and not an end goal. You seem to be willing to forgive this for curation but not for skilled play.

I don't even need to know what the win condition for a session of play is to identify the moments that story curation is used over skilled play. And that's because they are different processes, and clearly so. When the GM changes things, or players make actions, to better serve the story, that's curation.

If anything, what you're pointing to with win conditions is a consideration for play, and I agree with that. Understanding the goal of play for everybody involved is very important. Some goals of play will not be conducive to skilled play and some won't be conducive to story imperative. But Win Condition isn't a problem limited to Skilled Play -- wanting to play through an exciting, memorable story with good pacing and fun twists and an exciting climax is tailor made for story curation. Wanting to play a game where it's my actions and the mechanics alone that determine the outcome of the game, and the story is just what happens, exciting or not, is not conducive to story curation but is for skilled play. Meanwhile, "I want to defeat the threat to the village and become a hero" is not more or less conducive to either approach.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, because describing the attitude, demeanour and reactions of an NPC is totally the same thing than adding a dragon... OK, mate.

Are we arguing the price, now, having established it's all changes?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are we arguing the price, now, having established it's all changes?

I literally do not understand what you're saying.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I guess I was getting at the thought that if the GM had written the adventure, he'd know what (if any) limitations he had in mind. If the GM knew the players were the sort to go all "combat as war" on the scenario and set out to remove Strahd's reinforcements before (if possible) ambushing Strahd, then I'd hope the GM would either have those limitations laid out or tell the players there were none.

(Again, I keep coming to the PCs needing to be able to make an intelligent, informed choice, which is something I'm 99+% sure you agree with. Don't mean to harp on it. Sorry.)

It depends on what the scenario calls for, I think. I absolutely may itemize such things in some cases, and not in others. Part of the challenge in Curse of Strahd is, I think (or perhaps this was just how I ran it) that you cannot effectively remove all of the spheres of support he has available to him.

I don't think you're harping. I don't think I've summarized my CoS play sufficiently to paint an entirely clear picture, nor do I think I've actually spent a lot of time analyzing play and what we did....and it was a few years ago now, so my recollections are a bit fuzzy in spots.

I do think that there was skilled play in what my players did. And they did set about removing certain strengths that Strahd has (he has a right hand man, there is a witch who is like a mother to him, and he also had Ireena as a hostage, and they ultimately rescued her).

But all of these were crafted more to present an interesting scenario and to see what the players would have the characters do. Yes, there were challenges they had to face and overcome, but that wasn't the focus of play the way it may be in some other scenario.

I do see the difference/s you're getting at. I think I'd prefer your latter scenario as a player, if only because it seems as though tactics/strategy would be more of a help, there (and I don't care much for Ravenloft, in general). That's taste/preference, though.

Sure, that's absolutely understandable. I think the fact that it was Ravenloft was also a factor in that there were horror themes, and the overwhelming darkness reinforced that theme.

Obviously the game can (and will) work differently for different people, but when I prep a session the most I do is write up what the situation is, and an instigating event. The rest of the story is all about feedback loops between players and setting and events. I guess it's possible to say I'm "curating story" by picking situations and instigating events, but it doesn't feel like that from inside. Maybe that's why some people claim 5E isn't as GM-driven as you seem to imply.

Maybe. I think that the idea of "GM Driven" is sometimes mistaken as synonymous with "Railroad" which is unfortunate as I don't think that's the case.

As written, 5E D&D is very much GM driven. Different things may be done to shift that to different degrees, but that's what it is at it's core. The published materials support that, the vast amount of actual play examples support that. People rail against it needlessly because they're mistakenly viewing it as "bad" or that there are others who view it as "bad".

You've likely shifted away from that default based on what you describe....and I think my prep is similar in scope to yours. But then I wonder about your mention of something like defining Strahd's resources more clearly....that implies more prep than what you're mentioning here, don't you think?

D&D largely requires the DM to prepare elements ahead of time....a map, monsters and traps, etc. These things being set is what makes this a test of skilled play. Can the players manage the characters resources such that they can face all the challenges and make it through. Not committing ahead of time like that would shift focus from skilled play to a more story- or narrative-focused play.

 

[Bawylie]

D&D largely requires the DM to prepare elements ahead of time....a map, monsters and traps, etc. These things being set is what makes this a test of skilled play. Can the players manage the characters resources such that they can face all the challenges and make it through. Not committing ahead of time like that would shift focus from skilled play to a more story- or narrative-focused play.

Among the prepared elements, would you also include the motivations, goals, and alignments of the various NPCs? How about those NPCs’ potential activities if left unhindered?

When preparing these elements, what would you consider or call that? When taking these elements into account during the game, what would you call that?