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

[prabe]

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.

Well, once it occurred to me there should be reinforcements, I'd probably write them up next time I was prepping, just to keep myself honest. And so I could keep the fiction consistent.

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.

Yeah. I didn't think you were being inconsistent, or that the PCs were operating in a knowledge vacuum.

I will say that leaving that kind of blank space in a D&D scenario seems like either a temptation or a stumbling-block for certain kinds of DMs.

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.

I think story curation is kinda baked into TRPGS. Even where it's not the GM, someone (or someones, or plausibly the whole table) will be making choices based on what the story is, and where they think the story should go.

 

[clearstream]

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

Ah. I assume then that you intended precisely the same irony in your previous.

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.

My point is really quite different from what you have grasped. I am saying that because the SP group is concerned about leveraging the system etc, there is no conflict for them if in consequence they trivialise the BBEG. Trivialising the BBEG was one of their goals. And on the other hand, because the SI group are concerned for something that is outside of the game rules - imposed narrative - there is no conflict for them if they disallow the rest. Obedience to game mechanics is not their goal.

For there to be the possibility of a dilemma, a group would need to be working in both modes simultaneously. In that case, there are again no dilemmas worth discussing because a fundamental error has been made. The group cannot suppose that their intents and play acts will be able to be reconciled across two disparate modes.

Instead, I offer a third mode - gameful-narrative - as the route out of this perceived problem.

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?

So far, different posters have given different versions of SP. It is a chimera. I am assuming it is playing D&D as boardgame. I am open to expansions upon, refinements to, or corrections of that understanding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

You assume this is clear cut, whilst it absolutely is not. For example you think I changed the Vampire lord's personality whilst I think it was merely a result of unfolding circumstances. And considering that I literally said the example was based on Hitler, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine a powerful charismatic villain being reduced to covering wretch once he suffers enough set backs and knows that the end is nigh.

Furthermore, in medium that by necessity contains a ton of improvisation 'change' is nebulous concept. More often that not the thing was not really 'changed' it was merely nebulous or undefined, and was defined on the spot.

So yeah, the distinction you think exists, doesn't really exist in practice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, once it occurred to me there should be reinforcements, I'd probably write them up next time I was prepping, just to keep myself honest. And so I could keep the fiction consistent.

Okay, yes, in that sense I agree.

Yeah. I didn't think you were being inconsistent, or that the PCs were operating in a knowledge vacuum.

I will say that leaving that kind of blank space in a D&D scenario seems like either a temptation or a stumbling-block for certain kinds of DMs.

Oh, absolutely....if they want to avoid that temptation or stumbling block, then yes, it's a huge obstacle. But if they're not concerned with it, then it's actually a feature and not a bug.

If you do want to avoid those things, then it takes a lot of discipline and self awareness because the game does not do a lot to help a GM to avoid these kinds of things.

I have the benefit of having played RPGs with most of my players since we were kids, and so our table expectations and preferences are known to me, and my players trust me as a GM. That lets me tailor things to their wants without even really thinking about it (hence why I'm looking back at Curse of Strahd now and kind of realizing things about it after the fact).

I think story curation is kinda baked into TRPGS. Even where it's not the GM, someone (or someones, or plausibly the whole table) will be making choices based on what the story is, and where they think the story should go.

Sure, to some extent. But there are rules that can remove it, right?

Like look at Morale from B/X type D&D. Does the NPC flee or stay and fight? The Morale rules remove that decision from the GM and leave it up to the die roll. The GM doesn't get to say "oh but a fight would be more fun or meaningful at this point" unless he totally discards the rules and just does what he wants.

5E has almost nothing like that. So there is no need to ignore rules for a GM to do what they want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

WHAT DOES STORY CURATION MEAN?

A recent post by @Crimson Longinus has made me realize that there is at least some confusion as to what's meant by story curation. I will try to clarify.

Story curation is not the assigning of motivations or goals to NPC. It's not the development of a plan by the BBEG to do a thing that needs to be stopped. These aren't curation, so long as they are determined prior to play or in the moment of introduction for an NPC that is generated during play because of player actions. Having these things does not entail curation, this is just play. Maybe there's a neat term for it somewhere, but it's really just part of the fabric of sandbox approaches, or even basic adventure design. This is not curation.

What story curation means is that the GM is making decisions on outcomes during play that focus on maintaining a good story. IE, when the players declare an action for their PC, then GM considers how that action impacts the story and then chooses an outcome based not on how that action would have played out according to a strict reading of the rules, but instead on how it best improves the story. This could be about pacing, or challenge level, or even a new idea about a cooler story that could be told. It's not necessarily railroading, although that is a degenerate version of curation. It's merely about making choices about the gamestate that focus on improving the story outcomes rather than not considering the story outcome. Playing an NPC according to their BIFTs or goals is not story curation. Changing an NPC's BIFTs or goals in the moment because it makes for a better story is story curation.

The OP is a good example of an inflection point for story curation vs skilled play. Here the concept is that the players have, though play, set up a situation where the final encounter is isolated. By this I mean that there's no way to change the structure of the final encounter according to the established fiction (both in play and in prep). By all rights, the PCs have engineered a situation where they can easily rest and the final encounter cannot adjust (the BBEG is trapped, or unaware, or whatever). So, now the PC are choosing to take a long rest, which will further trivialize the final encounter. The GM is at a decision point -- if they adhere to skilled play priorities, then that's what happens: the PCs have earned this outcome, as dull and anti-climatic as it might be. Or, the GM can consider making changes to the situation on the fly and either adding reinforcements to the final encounter so that it maintains an appropriate challenge even to a rested party or deploying some reason that the party cannot take the rest. These, though, are changes to the gamestate for the purposes of curating the story -- making the final encounter exciting and memorable, in this case.

This is the conflict introduced by the OP and the conflict I've been discussing throughout. I hope that what story curation means is clearer now.

 

[prabe]

Oh, absolutely....if they want to avoid that temptation or stumbling block, then yes, it's a huge obstacle. But if they're not concerned with it, then it's actually a feature and not a bug.

While I can't disagree, I don't think I like the idea that scenario writers would intentionally leave something that could either A) encourage (arguably) bad GMing or B) cause problems for a GM.

If you do want to avoid those things, then it takes a lot of discipline and self awareness because the game does not do a lot to help a GM to avoid these kinds of things.

I think it'd be nice if 5E had more or better DMing advice in the DMG. I mean, the attitude of "And it harm none, do what thou wilt" is ... nice, but some specific advice on how to avoid some specific pitfalls that lead to some specific harms would be nicer.

I have the benefit of having played RPGs with most of my players since we were kids, and so our table expectations and preferences are known to me, and my players trust me as a GM. That lets me tailor things to their wants without even really thinking about it (hence why I'm looking back at Curse of Strahd now and kind of realizing things about it after the fact).

Yeah. Knowing the table is definitely an advantage. The fact the two D&D games I'm running have been going a while makes me more comfortable that way.

Like look at Morale from B/X type D&D. Does the NPC flee or stay and fight? The Morale rules remove that decision from the GM and leave it up to the die roll. The GM doesn't get to say "oh but a fight would be more fun or meaningful at this point" unless he totally discards the rules and just does what he wants.

5E has almost nothing like that. So there is no need to ignore rules for a GM to do what they want.

Can the DM in B/X ignore Morale, or specify that some instance of ... I dunno ... orcs ... has a different Morale number? It seems plausible they could, but I never really played much B/X and I honestly don't know.

Even if 5E had Morale, the DM would be have the authority to alter or ignore it in any given instance (if the rest of the game were unchanged, I mean).

 

[prabe]

The OP is a good example of an inflection point for story curation vs skilled play. Here the concept is that the players have, though play, set up a situation where the final encounter is isolated. By this I mean that there's no way to change the structure of the final encounter according to the established fiction (both in play and in prep). By all rights, the PCs have engineered a situation where they can easily rest and the final encounter cannot adjust (the BBEG is trapped, or unaware, or whatever). So, now the PC are choosing to take a long rest, which will further trivialize the final encounter. The GM is at a decision point -- if they adhere to skilled play priorities, then that's what happens: the PCs have earned this outcome, as dull and anti-climatic as it might be. Or, the GM can consider making changes to the situation on the fly and either adding reinforcements to the final encounter so that it maintains an appropriate challenge even to a rested party or deploying some reason that the party cannot take the rest. These, though, are changes to the gamestate for the purposes of curating the story -- making the final encounter exciting and memorable, in this case.

This is the conflict introduced by the OP and the conflict I've been discussing throughout.

The thing is, there's really not a conflict, here. The players have made the story about their superior tactics and/or strategy, and the eventual curbstomp of the BBEG. That curbstomp doesn't have to be an anticlimax, and probably shouldn't be viewed as one. Especially as you've described (or clarified) it, it seems the players have made their preferences clear, and those preferences should be honored.

 

[Bawylie]

WHAT DOES STORY CURATION MEAN?

A recent post by @Crimson Longinus has made me realize that there is at least some confusion as to what's meant by story curation. I will try to clarify.

Story curation is not the assigning of motivations or goals to NPC. It's not the development of a plan by the BBEG to do a thing that needs to be stopped. These aren't curation, so long as they are determined prior to play or in the moment of introduction for an NPC that is generated during play because of player actions. Having these things does not entail curation, this is just play. Maybe there's a neat term for it somewhere, but it's really just part of the fabric of sandbox approaches, or even basic adventure design. This is not curation.

What story curation means is that the GM is making decisions on outcomes during play that focus on maintaining a good story. IE, when the players declare an action for their PC, then GM considers how that action impacts the story and then chooses an outcome based not on how that action would have played out according to a strict reading of the rules, but instead on how it best improves the story. This could be about pacing, or challenge level, or even a new idea about a cooler story that could be told. It's not necessarily railroading, although that is a degenerate version of curation. It's merely about making choices about the gamestate that focus on improving the story outcomes rather than not considering the story outcome. Playing an NPC according to their BIFTs or goals is not story curation. Changing an NPC's BIFTs or goals in the moment because it makes for a better story is story curation.

The OP is a good example of an inflection point for story curation vs skilled play. Here the concept is that the players have, though play, set up a situation where the final encounter is isolated. By this I mean that there's no way to change the structure of the final encounter according to the established fiction (both in play and in prep). By all rights, the PCs have engineered a situation where they can easily rest and the final encounter cannot adjust (the BBEG is trapped, or unaware, or whatever). So, now the PC are choosing to take a long rest, which will further trivialize the final encounter. The GM is at a decision point -- if they adhere to skilled play priorities, then that's what happens: the PCs have earned this outcome, as dull and anti-climatic as it might be. Or, the GM can consider making changes to the situation on the fly and either adding reinforcements to the final encounter so that it maintains an appropriate challenge even to a rested party or deploying some reason that the party cannot take the rest. These, though, are changes to the gamestate for the purposes of curating the story -- making the final encounter exciting and memorable, in this case.

This is the conflict introduced by the OP and the conflict I've been discussing throughout. I hope that what story curation means is clearer now.

JFC.

Called it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

WHAT DOES STORY CURATION MEAN?

A recent post by @Crimson Longinus has made me realize that there is at least some confusion as to what's meant by story curation. I will try to clarify.

Story curation is not the assigning of motivations or goals to NPC. It's not the development of a plan by the BBEG to do a thing that needs to be stopped. These aren't curation, so long as they are determined prior to play or in the moment of introduction for an NPC that is generated during play because of player actions. Having these things does not entail curation, this is just play. Maybe there's a neat term for it somewhere, but it's really just part of the fabric of sandbox approaches, or even basic adventure design. This is not curation.

What story curation means is that the GM is making decisions on outcomes during play that focus on maintaining a good story. IE, when the players declare an action for their PC, then GM considers how that action impacts the story and then chooses an outcome based not on how that action would have played out according to a strict reading of the rules, but instead on how it best improves the story. This could be about pacing, or challenge level, or even a new idea about a cooler story that could be told. It's not necessarily railroading, although that is a degenerate version of curation. It's merely about making choices about the gamestate that focus on improving the story outcomes rather than not considering the story outcome. Playing an NPC according to their BIFTs or goals is not story curation. Changing an NPC's BIFTs or goals in the moment because it makes for a better story is story curation.

The OP is a good example of an inflection point for story curation vs skilled play. Here the concept is that the players have, though play, set up a situation where the final encounter is isolated. By this I mean that there's no way to change the structure of the final encounter according to the established fiction (both in play and in prep). By all rights, the PCs have engineered a situation where they can easily rest and the final encounter cannot adjust (the BBEG is trapped, or unaware, or whatever). So, now the PC are choosing to take a long rest, which will further trivialize the final encounter. The GM is at a decision point -- if they adhere to skilled play priorities, then that's what happens: the PCs have earned this outcome, as dull and anti-climatic as it might be. Or, the GM can consider making changes to the situation on the fly and either adding reinforcements to the final encounter so that it maintains an appropriate challenge even to a rested party or deploying some reason that the party cannot take the rest. These, though, are changes to the gamestate for the purposes of curating the story -- making the final encounter exciting and memorable, in this case.

This is the conflict introduced by the OP and the conflict I've been discussing throughout. I hope that what story curation means is clearer now.

Some things are always undefined and GM has to make decisions on the fly. And their narrative preferences will affect those, there's no way around that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah. I assume then that you intended precisely the same irony in your previous.

I haven't declared myself correct, though, I've argued my position.

My point is really quite different from what you have grasped. I am saying that because the SP group is concerned about leveraging the system etc, there is no conflict for them if in consequence they trivialise the BBEG. Trivialising the BBEG was one of their goals. And on the other hand, because the SI group are concerned for something that is outside of the game rules - imposed narrative - there is no conflict for them if they disallow the rest. Obedience to game mechanics is not their goal.

Um, okay. Was this ever an argument made by anyone in the thread? I don't see any story curation here, so saying "there's no story curation so there's no conflict!" is, well, true but also trivially so.

For there to be the possibility of a dilemma, a group would need to be working in both modes simultaneously. In that case, there are again no dilemmas worth discussing because a fundamental error has been made. The group cannot suppose that their intents and play acts will be able to be reconciled across two disparate modes.

Whoa, talk about hiding the pea! Has this been your argument the whole time? When you say 'there's not conflict between A and B' in the future, I'm to immediately understand that this is because A and B are incompatible and you can't mix them, so trying to is a complete error. And, since you can't mix A and B, A and B are never in conflict.

Dude, this argument is so byzantine it's no wonder we've gone pages.

What strikes me as really odd here is that I've been saying you cannot do story curation and skilled play and yet you've been stridently disagreeing with me. I mean, what?

Instead, I offer a third mode - gameful-narrative - as the route out of this perceived problem.


So far, different posters have given different versions of SP. It is a chimera. I am assuming it is playing D&D as boardgame. I am open to expansions upon, refinements to, or corrections of that understanding.

It's not a chimera. All of the definitions given align, they just use different ways of describing it. I try for blunt and without adornment. @Manbearcat, bless him, uses big words. The ideas expressed, though, don't disagree and describe the same thing. The fundamental point of skilled play is that the outcomes of play are direct results of the player's choices, the mechanical outputs of the game, and the GM faithful representation of the prep. Describing this as "playing D&D as boardgame" misses the point somewhat. I mean, that can happen and it would be aligned with skilled play, but it's unnecessarily limiting. Like defining food as bread. Bread is food, but... well.