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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Oh, my. I certainly seem to have a different experience than you do.

Let's break this down, though. Let's start with Gloomhaven, which is widely held to be a very RPG adjacent boardgame. It's not an RPG, but it's rather close. In Gloomhaven, it is impossible to have story curation -- the game is entirely driven by mechanics in resolution. I think we can all agree that the primary focus of a game like Gloomhaven is skilled play.

Now, let's shift a bit into an actual RPG. Let's look at B/X. I can absolutely set up a dungeon very much like a Gloomhaven one -- three to five rooms, combat challenges, puzzle goals. I can then run this for players in a very much "this is what's here" way using the rules strictly and never once introducing or altering a thing -- ie, without curating story at all. The only "story" here is what happens in play. But, this is very simple, a simple dungeon, straightforward encounters, not terribly complicated. However, it's still an RPG, clearly, and run without any story curation, and, I can absolutely scale it up to much more complicated dungeons and still hold to this process.

What I think you're talking about is running a much more modern game, where story is an important factor, and so you'll probably discount the above, maybe as not a real RPG. But, it is, it's what a hard skilled play approach looks like. There was a poster here, who I haven't seen for a bit, that made elaborate set piece 3-D dungeons. They were gorgeous. And he talked about his play as pretty much nothing but hard-core combat challenges strung along a loose storyline. That was absolutely hard-core skilled play, and he was raked for it. It didn't help that he was aggressive about it, though. But the point is that such games can absolutely exist. And, if you're like most modern players of 5e, it seems alien in concept because story curation is very much the norm these days. Skilled play isn't something well supported by either the ruleset or the general zeitgeist around 5e. Which is perfectly fine. But refusing to see that it can even exist? That's a bit much.

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

Which is very much story curation and not skilled play.

 

[prabe]

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).

Those sound like vaguely strategic moves to me. Cut off what support you can. Avoid the distraction of the hostage (because it's an unusual party of heroes that will ignore the hostage).

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.

It's not that I don't like horror, or that I don't think you can have a scary game of D&D. I have never seen a horror mechanic in a TRPG that I liked, and Ravenloft ... makes for D&D that isn't D&D I want to play. I particularly do not like that the problems presented in Ravenloft are frequently not actually problems the PCs can really solve--even if they "succeed" the problems reset.

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?

If I'm setting up a scenario where the party's opponent/s have reinforcements that might show up, I'll probably work out what those reinforcements are and when they'll show up, as part of the scenario. Doing that beforehand feels fairer to me than just adding whatever, whenever. If nothing else, it forces me to be consistent with the established facts, especially if the PCs put any effort into finding out about reinforcements (because I'll establish what I already have prepped).

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.

I don't think preparing things ahead of time prevents the scenario from being about a story, though I'll admit it tends more toward one shaped by player tactics/strategy. I think it's possible to leave large parts of a scenario undefined and still test those things, but I think it's harder to do so fairly.

 

[Campbell]

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?

NPC design including motivations, goals, and what they are currently up to is probably the most significant part of my prep in most games I run. I just consider it part of good scenario design. Once that's set up playing it out with integrity is just part of running the sandbox. It only becomes story advocacy when you start making decisions for those NPCs based on what you think would make for a better story.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I'm correct on the win con argument, but it is okay that you think otherwise. Possibly we agree about assigning goals to RPGs, rather than win conditions in a boardgame or zero-sum sense. We might agree that SP and SI play acts are most meaningful when connected to goals, although goals are constantly updated. Although it frequently goes unnoted, players enter the game from outside and bring goals with them from that larger context. This means it is not possible to tell what the goals of a player are through only scrutinising the game.

While we can describe the steps and say what must happen to satisfy SP, there is no similarly settled picture for SI. As you (hopefully) know, I in fact discount SI from even being gameful, unless it is what I call gameful-narrative. In that mode, it will respect the game mechanics and do the work to navigate, and have expectations that are open to, each turn of events.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

NPC design including motivations, goals, and what they are currently up to is probably the most significant part of my prep in most games I run. I just consider it part of good scenario design. Once that's set up playing it out with integrity is just part of running the sandbox. It only becomes story advocacy when you start making decisions for those NPCs based on what you think would make for a better story.

And I claim you will do that anyway. Your NPC preplanning cannot be 100% comprehensive human simulator. It might give you some general trends, but you still we be winging things on the fly, and at that moment your personal narrative preferences will affect the direction you'll go. Best just recognise this and accept the responsibility.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

That's a good question.

I look at those elements as being part of the scenario that is being presented. I have an NPC with motivation X, which led to Y, and now what will the PCs do about it. If they do nothing, then Z may happen. That kind of thing.

So I think the question is how is the scenario I'm designing being presented. What is the point of it? Am I designing it primarily as some kind of memorable experience of a narrative sort, or am I designing it to be a test of player skill? I do think these things overlap and are not mutually exclusive, but I do think the intent matters here. This is where priority may come into play.

So they seem to me to be things that I'm simply introducing as part of the scenario. These are elements of the scenario for the players to interact with. Can they do so in a skillful way to further their goals? Sure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, my. I certainly seem to have a different experience than you do.

Let's break this down, though. Let's start with Gloomhaven, which is widely held to be a very RPG adjacent boardgame. It's not an RPG, but it's rather close. In Gloomhaven, it is impossible to have story curation -- the game is entirely driven by mechanics in resolution. I think we can all agree that the primary focus of a game like Gloomhaven is skilled play.

Now, let's shift a bit into an actual RPG. Let's look at B/X. I can absolutely set up a dungeon very much like a Gloomhaven one -- three to five rooms, combat challenges, puzzle goals. I can then run this for players in a very much "this is what's here" way using the rules strictly and never once introducing or altering a thing -- ie, without curating story at all. The only "story" here is what happens in play. But, this is very simple, a simple dungeon, straightforward encounters, not terribly complicated. However, it's still an RPG, clearly, and run without any story curation, and, I can absolutely scale it up to much more complicated dungeons and still hold to this process.

What I think you're talking about is running a much more modern game, where story is an important factor, and so you'll probably discount the above, maybe as not a real RPG. But, it is, it's what a hard skilled play approach looks like. There was a poster here, who I haven't seen for a bit, that made elaborate set piece 3-D dungeons. They were gorgeous. And he talked about his play as pretty much nothing but hard-core combat challenges strung along a loose storyline. That was absolutely hard-core skilled play, and he was raked for it. It didn't help that he was aggressive about it, though. But the point is that such games can absolutely exist. And, if you're like most modern players of 5e, it seems alien in concept because story curation is very much the norm these days. Skilled play isn't something well supported by either the ruleset or the general zeitgeist around 5e. Which is perfectly fine. But refusing to see that it can even exist? That's a bit much.

The thing is even in such super simple dungeon setup (where the world outside the dungeon apparently doesn't exist,) once the GM assigns any motivations to monsters or NPCs, or describes anything let's the NPCs say anything, they're curating the story and affecting player responses.

Which is very much story curation and not skilled play.

It is story curation because that is always present. It doesn't need to interfere with skilled play. When you manage to kill the vampire lord the GM may describe him exploding like a cartoony blood balloon, making everything sound as silly and non-serious as they can, or they can describe the vampire lord slowly crumbling to dust whilst cursing the characters with his last breath,* his voice echoing in the air. And that will be a differnt story depending which way the GM goes, but no skilled play is interfered with. And this description probably also affect what the characters will do next.

(*not literally, as vampires do not breathe.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm correct on the win con argument, but it is okay that you think otherwise.

LOL! Good one. This is a joke, right? No one actually just outright claims victory for themselves like this without intentional irony, right?

Possibly we agree about assigning goals to RPGs, rather than win conditions in a boardgame or zero-sum sense. We might agree that SP and SI play acts are most meaningful when connected to goals, although goals are constantly updated. Although it frequently goes unnoted, players enter the game from outside and bring goals with them from that larger context. This means it is not possible to tell what the goals of a player are through only scrutinising the game.

While we can describe the steps and say what must happen to satisfy SP, there is no similarly settled picture for SI. As you (hopefully) know, I in fact discount SI from even being gameful, unless it is what I call gameful-narrative. In that mode, it will respect the game mechanics and do the work to navigate, and have expectations that are open to, each turn of events.

For me then, apparent dilemmas between mechanics and narrative represent differences in means and intents of the adopted modes of play. I deny a conflict because for there to be a conflict there would need to be an intent that was shared by both modes, that under one mode could only be satisfied in a way that excluded satisfying it under the other.

I'm sorry, but have you read anything I've posted about what skilled play means? You're outright denying that skilled play is about the player leveraging the system and their resources to direct the course of play. You do this because you say that this is, in no way, opposed to the GM altering the course of play for a story reason, which directly impacts the skilled play goal of directing the course of play through play.

This has nothing to do with win conditions, but instead seems that you have an unstated definition of skilled play. What definition of skilled play are you operating under?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Those sound like vaguely strategic moves to me. Cut off what support you can. Avoid the distraction of the hostage (because it's an unusual party of heroes that will ignore the hostage).

Yeah, for sure. The game was not without any tests of player skill. I'd just say the focus was more about the conflict between the PCs and Strahd and how that played out. Any tactical decisions made were made to better the chances the PCs had against Strahd, but that still fed into the central focus of play.

It's not that I don't like horror, or that I don't think you can have a scary game of D&D. I have never seen a horror mechanic in a TRPG that I liked, and Ravenloft ... makes for D&D that isn't D&D I want to play. I particularly do not like that the problems presented in Ravenloft are frequently not actually problems the PCs can really solve--even if they "succeed" the problems reset.

Horror mechanics were not something I really worried about all too much. I don't think we used them at all, looking back. I mean, Ravenloft is spooky thematically, but we were still playing D&D.

So for me, the idea of Horror as it mattered to our game was the idea of an incredibly capable foe with significant resources at his disposal, and the PCs only being able to improve their chances so much.

If I'm setting up a scenario where the party's opponent/s have reinforcements that might show up, I'll probably work out what those reinforcements are and when they'll show up, as part of the scenario. Doing that beforehand feels fairer to me than just adding whatever, whenever. If nothing else, it forces me to be consistent with the established facts, especially if the PCs put any effort into finding out about reinforcements (because I'll establish what I already have prepped).

Okay, gotcha. I'd say that's a bit more prep than you implied.....but I suppose some of these kinds of details may simply come up in play, in which case then it's honored as established fiction, and so isn't exactly prep.

But I do want to point out that I don't think that what I did was being inconsistent, or that we didn't establish Strahd's resources beforehand. They very much knew the situation. There's not really any conceivable way for four people...even powerful people....to eliminate all his resources ahead of time, especially since they were operating with time constraints. I think this is just the kind of gray area that is built in where the GM can influence things however they like in order to produce their desired effect. I think that the rules are largely structured this way, as well.

It is designed to give the GM leeway to influence things as play progresses, and not just before hand.

I don't think preparing things ahead of time prevents the scenario from being about a story, though I'll admit it tends more toward one shaped by player tactics/strategy. I think it's possible to leave large parts of a scenario undefined and still test those things, but I think it's harder to do so fairly.

Yeah, I don't really want to present any absolutes here. I'm speaking generally. Skilled play can take different forms, certainly. And preparing ahead of time doesn't prevent the focus from becoming one of story curation. And so on.

I honestly just see story curation as so baked in to 5E that it takes real effort to minimize it, and I don't think it can be eliminated without pretty severe house rules or changes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The thing is even in such super simple dungeon setup (where the world outside the dungeon apparently doesn't exist,) once the GM assigns any motivations to monsters or NPCs, or describes anything let's the NPCs say anything, they're curating the story and affecting player responses.

Oh, okay, I see the problem. No, this is not story curation. Story curation is about decision the GM makes during play to change the play state to support a better story. Assigning NPC goals and motivations is not story curation. Changing an NPC goal or motivation during play, because of what's happening in play, to make for a better story is story curation. Your changes to my BBEG are story curation, because you're altering the NPC to be something that it wasn't earlier because you think it makes for a better story. Your later example of having the BBEG be that way all along and it way discovered through play by the PCs and they leveraged it to the same outcome was not story curation.

Story curation is about the GM making changes to better support a story during play at a moment of decision. The OP is actually a good example of this -- the players have arranged things so that they have the final encounter isolated, and can now take a long rest to recharge, meaning they come into the final confrontation with full resources and this is likely to render it particularly easy. The GM can either honor this, and adhere to skilled play, or they can change things to maintain the final challenge, or they can change things to deploy a reason the PCs cannot take the long rest. The latter two are story curation.

If, on the other hand, you have prepped a secret way for reinforcements to arrive and the PCs missed this secret through play, then deploying this is not story curation because the player's choices had to opportunity to find this out but missed it.

It is story curation because that is always present. It doesn't need to interfere with skilled play. When you manage to kill the vampire lord the GM may describe him exploding like a cartoony blood balloon, making everything sound as silly and non-serious as they can, or they can describe the vampire lord slowly crumbling to dust whilst cursing the characters with his last breath,* his voice echoing in the air. And that will be a differnt story depending which way the GM goes, but no skilled play is interfered with. And this description probably also affect what the characters will do next.

(*not literally, as vampires do not breathe.)

No, you've confused having story elements with having story curation. I thought I had addressed this when I defined story curation above, and @Campbell did a very good job of it in a recent post, but it needs to be clarified even more. I'll make a separate post.