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

[Ovinomancer]

No there isn't.


In both situations the GM makes a choice about the direction of the story. I could just easily frame it as the GM thinking that cowardly and possibly not so smart kobold could easily panic and the dungeon is filled with denizens so it is likely that someone would hear, but because the story is kinda dragging and the characters are low on resources they let the kobold to remain calm and offer useful information so that the story can progress smoothly and we get to the climatic end battle before everyone gets bored. One option isn't any more 'curation' than another.

Good grief. The kobold was successfully intimidated. The players succeeded. The intent of the players is clearly not to alert the encounter to their presence, but instead gain information on that encounter. You're narrating a fail to that intent because the players succeeded. This is absolutely story curation -- you feel that it's a better story for the kobold to act out after being successfully intimidated, so that's what you narrate. You've obviated the play of the players and substituted in an outcome based on what you think the story should be. This is absolutely story curation, and if you're arguing from this being okay, then I can see why you think all GM narration is story curation. There's other ways to do it, though.

Since the kobold has been successfully intimidated, the players get what they want and I, as GM, do not thwart that. This is not story curation, because I've following play and honoring the success on the tests I've called for. My narration is not in service to what I think makes the better story -- we've already established that the GM is concerned that this will make later encounters much easier due to having more resources available. The GM can think this even if not engaging in story curation -- they just aren't going to do anything about it by forcing outcomes, like a screaming kobold, to correct for it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good grief. The kobold was successfully intimidated. The players succeeded. The intent of the players is clearly not to alert the encounter to their presence, but instead gain information on that encounter. You're narrating a fail to that intent because the players succeeded. This is absolutely story curation -- you feel that it's a better story for the kobold to act out after being successfully intimidated, so that's what you narrate. You've obviated the play of the players and substituted in an outcome based on what you think the story should be. This is absolutely story curation, and if you're arguing from this being okay, then I can see why you think all GM narration is story curation. There's other ways to do it, though.

Since the kobold has been successfully intimidated, the players get what they want and I, as GM, do not thwart that. This is not story curation, because I've following play and honoring the success on the tests I've called for. My narration is not in service to what I think makes the better story -- we've already established that the GM is concerned that this will make later encounters much easier due to having more resources available. The GM can think this even if not engaging in story curation -- they just aren't going to do anything about it by forcing outcomes, like a screaming kobold, to correct for it.

The Kobold is intimidated, i.e. scared of the characters and will offer some information. The GM must decide exactly how much and how coherent that information is, and how being hella scared affects the kobold's behaviour otherwise. And of course the GM chose the DC for the intimidation check in the first place.

This is like with the vampire, where you though your assumption of the outcome was 'neutral' an my interpretation of the vampire covering in their lair 'a change'. You're fixated your own chosen direction and do not realise that it is just one possibility among many.

It is rather worrisome how blind you're to your bias. I'd rather play with GM that understands what they're actually doing than one who pushes their own agenda just the same but lacks the awareness to recognise that they're doing so.

 

[chaochou]

No there isn't.

Yes there is. You're just ignorant if it. And unaware of what you don't know.

The pitiful thing is you're also not curious about what you don't know.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The Kobold is intimidated, i.e. scared of the characters and will offer some information. The GM must decide exactly how much and how coherent that information is, and how being hella scared affects the kobold's behaviour otherwise. And of course the GM chose the DC for the intimidation check in the first place.

If the GM is making this choice based on what they think makes a better story, then it's story curation. Sure, the kobold could scream, but this dishonors the intent behind the player's declared actions, because the kobold could, just as easily, not scream. You're selecting an outcome based on what you think makes for a better story, then you're engaged in story curation. Honoring the success and giving the players what they intended with the action is not making a choice based on what makes the best story.

This is like with the vampire, where you though your assumption of the outcome was 'neutral' an my interpretation of the vampire covering in their lair 'a change'. You're fixated your own chosen direction and do not realise that it is just one possibility among many.

I have no idea what vampire you're discussing. Do you mean my earlier example of a BBEG? Never was identified, but, sure, whatevs, vampire works. The change you made was to make a better story -- you felt this told a better tale and so you created the idea that the vampire was a coward and would hide in it's lair. However, the issue I had with this is that this trait of the vampire was not available to be discovered or leveraged prior to this, but rather you adjusting the story of the vampire to fit the players' actions. It's a change to make a better story. Now, this one's not terribly egregious, in the great scheme of things, because it's mostly flavor, but it's also something that a party that had earned this information earlier could have used in a different ploy altogether. It's not engaging in skilled play, it's adding things after the fact, that could never be leveraged in skilled play, and only to tell a better story.

I could, for instance, just not change the vampire at all from the prep. This isn't a choice to tell a better story, it's sticking to what was established and honored throughout play.

It is rather worrisome how blind you're to your bias. I'd rather play with GM that understands what they're actually doing than one who pushes their own agenda just the same but lacks the awareness to recognise that they're doing so.

Of course I do -- any argument that the GM does not affect play is facetious. I'm not saying that the GM has no impact ever, what I'm saying is that there's is a large difference between a GM actively striving to be as neutral as possible and a GM that's intentionally manipulating outcomes to better tell a story. If you disagree here, then you're saying that all games are railroads, which I know you'd vehemently disagree with. You're taking a trivial observation -- that GM choices have impacts -- and smearing it into an inevitable assumption that there's no difference between engaging with trying to be a fair adjudicator of actions and the GM adjudicating in favor of their story. I disagree with this, and can do so with the full knowledge and understanding that I, as a GM, cannot ever be 100% neutral, nor would I try.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No there isn't.

In both situations the GM makes a choice about the direction of the story.

But can't a GM make a decision that influences how play will go (we could perhaps argue that all their decisions will do that) but that his reasoning behind the decision is not about how play will go? Meaning that there are reasons other than how play will go that are the relevant factors in the decision making process.

I think you're mixing an outcome of a decision for the reasoning behind the decision.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the GM is making this choice based on what they think makes a better story, then it's story curation.

They will always do that to certain degree, either consciously or subconsciously. Unless they're actively and intentionally trying to create bad story. But that would be directing the story too.

Sure, the kobold could scream, but this dishonors the intent behind the player's declared actions, because the kobold could, just as easily, not scream.

The intent was to scare the kobold. Kobold is scared. Yes, it could scram or it could not. Neither option is 'neutral.'

You're selecting an outcome based on what you think makes for a better story, then you're engaged in story curation. Honoring the success and giving the players what they intended with the action is not making a choice based on what makes the best story.

You're doing that too, you just prefer a differnt outcome! The only difference is that I'm honest about what I'm doing.

I have no idea what vampire you're discussing. Do you mean my earlier example of a BBEG? Never was identified, but, sure, whatevs, vampire works. The change you made was to make a better story -- you felt this told a better tale and so you created the idea that the vampire was a coward and would hide in it's lair. However, the issue I had with this is that this trait of the vampire was not available to be discovered or leveraged prior to this, but rather you adjusting the story of the vampire to fit the players' actions. It's a change to make a better story. Now, this one's not terribly egregious, in the great scheme of things, because it's mostly flavor, but it's also something that a party that had earned this information earlier could have used in a different ploy altogether. It's not engaging in skilled play, it's adding things after the fact, that could never be leveraged in skilled play, and only to tell a better story.

I could, for instance, just not change the vampire at all from the prep. This isn't a choice to tell a better story, it's sticking to what was established and honored throughout play.

Nothing is changed, it is logical outcome of the player's actions. Sure, it is one among many possibilities, but that's always the case.

Of course I do -- any argument that the GM does not affect play is facetious. I'm not saying that the GM has no impact ever, what I'm saying is that there's is a large difference between a GM actively striving to be as neutral as possible and a GM that's intentionally manipulating outcomes to better tell a story. If you disagree here, then you're saying that all games are railroads, which I know you'd vehemently disagree with.

Yes, because the GM affecting the story is not railroading. GM's job is to affect the story, if they were not, we could replace them with a stack of spreadsheets.

You're taking a trivial observation -- that GM choices have impacts -- and smearing it into an inevitable assumption that there's no difference between engaging with trying to be a fair adjudicator of actions and the GM adjudicating in favor of their story. I disagree with this, and can do so with the full knowledge and understanding that I, as a GM, cannot ever be 100% neutral, nor would I try.

Right. So you cannot be 100% neutral. That's what I am saying. You will always be curating the story, at least a little bit. And that's not a bad thing, that's the GM's job!

 

[Manbearcat]

I asked if SP equates with addressing game as boardgame: that still hasn't been concretely answered or rebutted (or it has, but in a fashion or post that I have not noticed!) If it is more than boardgame, what is that more?

1) This is in the text by me you just quoted:

"Boardgaming" is necessary but not sufficient (because it doesn't include the "shared imagined space" component that is part and parcel of Skilled Play in TTRPGing).

2) The below is post by me (363 of this thread), which was a response to you about SP being boardgames:

No, not a boardgame. When my cousin introduced me to D&D back in '84 I believe his exact words were "its like a boardgame but with your imagination."

Good description cousin. Not quite there though. "Imagination" is necessary but not sufficient.

D&D requires a shared imagined spaced. If dungeons were boardgames, there wouldn't be a PC role of mapper.

4e Skill Challenges can't be played on a board.

Perilous journeys and climbs up savage mountain faces, Indiana Jones esque chases from collapsing temples, parleys with the king's chamberlain for audience with the king (and on and on and on) are all played in the shared imagined space. Players are leveraging fictional framing in making action declarations. Players are trying to wrest control (from either the GM or another player) of that fictional framing so that they can "open up the move-space" for their character.

Its likely that all D&D combat can basically be captured by "this is a boardgame and the Skilled Play that is an outgrowth of this play is predicated exclusively upon boardgame dynamics." But the shared imagined space (and the attendant leveraging of the fictional framing of that space) separates D&D from a boardgame.

3) This is post 363 about why Skill Challenges failed due to user error/lack of deftness of or facility with the rules/techniques/skills of play

Its 4e D&D and the GM is utterly terrible at running Skill Challenges (no "change the situation", no thematic coherency, "Fail Forward" and "Success With Complication" is either nonexistent or poorly executed). At the same time (or conversely), the players at the table aren't creative or proactive at all. They have no idea how to appropriately leverage the shared imagined space and their characters assets to drive a compelling thematic scene skillfully.

---

Again:

The most cogent way to demonstrate the difference between Skilled Play in boardgaming and TTRPGing is "does this thing have a shared imagined space that we must leverage to play skillfully?" If yes, its a TTRPG.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But can't a GM make a decision that influences how play will go (we could perhaps argue that all their decisions will do that) but that his reasoning behind the decision is not about how play will go? Meaning that there are reasons other than how play will go that are the relevant factors in the decision making process.

I think you're mixing an outcome of a decision for the reasoning behind the decision.

Sure, of course other factors influence the decisions. But this is about when those other factors are equal. When there is a situation where a number of differnt things could equally logically* follow from the PCs' actions, the GM will have to choose some way. Do you choose one which makes the best story, everything else being equal?

* And of course this is already 'equally logical' according to the GM's judgement, which is not neutral. When dealing with imagined things with a lots of moving parts we're generally predisposed to thinks things that are appealing to us to be more likely. Like how we are more likely to think that a politician with whom we already agree with is making better argument in a debate.

 

[Umbran]

No there isn't.

Yes there is.

Mod Note:
This does not look like a mature exchange of ideas in which anyone is learning anything.

Please reconsider your approach to the thread, folks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, of course other factors influence the decisions. But this is about when those other factors are equal. When there is a situation where a number of differnt things could equally logically* follow from the PCs' actions, the GM will have to choose some way. Do you choose one which makes the best story, everything else being equal?

I don't quite follow this. Let's say you as GM decide that a given NPC flees the scene rather than staying and fighting, which would make a more memorable/exciting encounter. Isn't your priority here not the excitement of the gaming experience, but fidelity to the NPC as established?

* And of course this is already 'equally logical' according to the GM's judgement, which is not neutral. When dealing with imagined things with a lots of moving parts we're generally predisposed to thinks things that are appealing to us to be more likely. Like how we are more likely to think that a politician with whom we already agree with is making better argument in a debate.

A GM's judgment need not be neutral for their decision making to be based on something other than "the best story".

When you buy a car, you prevent someone else from buying that car. But that's not why you bought it.