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

[Manbearcat]

Nah. I get what you're saying, I too feel that endeavouring to create that intense engagement at the moment is super important. I just feel that you (and certain others) have bizarrely narrow definition of 'story'. This is just the jazz method of creating an engaging story.

And I don't think that "good stories often occur when we do this, but it's beside the point," is at all besides the point. That's like super crucial to the point. You're using intuitive method for creating good stories, and that the players feel engaged and that the story is good are not separate unconnected things, they're basically the same thing!

But what you are doing is something like this:

PERSON 1:

* Structure of play matters.

* Rules and whether you have to follow them or not matters.

* GMing principles matter.

* Authority distribution matters.

* Action resolution mechanics and attendant techniques matter (like tiered results + Fail Forward/Success With Complications vs Binary Succeed/Fail)

* Whether a game is table-facing or GM-facing matters.

* Whether all this stuff flows directly into what the game says it’s supposed to do matters (or whether you have to go outside of all of the above stuff to get the game to do what it claims or does).

All of this stuff constrains and focuses the “play space” for every participant at the table and supports a unique play agenda and play experience.

CRIMSON LONGINUS:

Nah, any individual iteration of each of those things doesn’t focus or constrain the “play space” for individual participants (or at least not for the GM) any more or less or differently. Following from that, any individual configuration of any iteration of each of those things becomes irrelevant. It’s all navel gazing.

Because at the broadest level of zoom possible, any GM input is always about the same stuff and unable to be hemmed in:

An expression of the GM’s biased priors to “find the fun” and “curate a story”, and neither system nor GM discipline has any say in that.

---

That is my reading of how you’re positioning yourself in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

No. Please stop bouncing around and inserting your own assumptions. No one has said this.

And, having said the above, a stand-out example of using 5e is a Skilled Play mode is how @iserith has described his online pick-up games. He uses a clearly stated, player facing adjudication method; has clear, leverageable table rules (eg, his Inspiration rules); and he sticks with location-based, heavy prep scenarios. It's a great example of how you can do Skilled Play in 5e.

I felt "SP-mode" to be a clear enough abbreviation for "Skilled Play mode". Even the abbreviation "SP" is not my own: it was introduced by another poster in a different thread.

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.

and

I know that Moldvay Basic, and Gygaxian D&D more generally, is not a boardgame because (unlike a boardgame) there is a shared fiction, which matters to framing and resolution.

I believed these comments to imply that the crucial difference between SP and a boardgame is that SP is boardgame plus imagined space or shared fiction.

What I see I added is "language-mode" as a way to label addressing the imagined space or shared fiction. That was motivated by desiring to reify such qualities or processes. I thought about what roleplaying gamers are actually doing when dealing with imagined space or shared fiction. What is effectively, really, visibly happening. They are talking. Describing in language. We don't play the game in fiction-mode or imaginary-mode: concretely we play the game in language-mode. That said, I'm not attached to this label and the intent of my post was to solicit definitions by presenting a strawman.

 

[clearstream]

I don’t know what a stitch up is?

And yes.

There are 6 games listed (which I’ve GMed so I can speak to them):

AD&D
RC Hexcrawls
Moldvay Basic
3.x
4e
5e

Each game has multiple Skilled Play subheadings listed for each of them.

I asked you to list 3 of those Skilled Play subheadings but not combat.

You listed:

* An actual game but without either of the 2 Skilled Play subheadings.

* Something that isn’t on that list (but looks like the 1st Skilled Play subheading after 3.x).

* Something that isn’t precisely on any game’s list but can be zoomed out to be on every game’s list (the closest I could read to the exact wording you used was under 5e).


So, for instance, something like this would be what I was looking for (the game and the exact subheading...so I can focus precisely on that Skilled Play in that particular game):

RC Hexcrawls: Optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies").

3.x: Class and build choice minigame (pick Druids, Wizards, Clerics).

4e: Skill Challenge creativity in action declarations and Skill Power/Utility deployment.

Each of your items had a sentence description and system noted for it. Are you really in good faith saying that from my headers you were not able to discern which of your lines was referenced? You listed -

AD&D: Optimizing rote dungeon crawl SOPs for dealing with traps + optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies").

Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawls: Managing the Exploration Turn/Rest/Light economy + skillful Exploration turns and (basically) Group Checks
+ avoiding needless combats + maximizing the encumbrance/equipment loadout/treasure weight ratio minigame.

RC Hexcrawls: Optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies") + skillful Exploration turns and (basically) Group Checks.

3.x: Class and build choice minigame (pick Druids, Wizards, Clerics) + optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies", sustain yourself, buff everyone to the teeth).

4e: Optimize Team PC synergy in combat while optimizing movement/forced movement/control/hazard and terrain interactions to shut down the pivotal components of Team Monster/battlefield synergy + Off-turn actions + Skill Challenge creativity in action declarations and Skill Power/Utility deployment.

5e: Optimizing spell loadout/deployments (to obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, synergize skill augments, trigger/protect Long Rest) + Range combat and Bonus Actions + Getting your GM to "say yes" as much as possible + play the "Wheel of Fortune" Social Conflict well.

 

[Manbearcat]

I felt "SP-mode" to be a clear enough abbreviation for "Skilled Play mode". Even the abbreviation "SP" is not my own: it was introduced by another poster in a different thread.


and

I believed these comments to imply that the crucial difference between SP and a boardgame is that SP is boardgame plus imagined space or shared fiction.

What I see I added is "language-mode" as a way to label addressing the imagined space or shared fiction. That was motivated by desiring to reify such qualities or processes. I thought about what roleplaying gamers are actually doing when dealing with imagined space or shared fiction. What is effectively, really, visibly happening. They are talking. Describing in language. We don't play the game in fiction-mode or imaginary-mode: concretely we play the game in language-mode. That said, I'm not attached to this label and the intent of my post was to solicit definitions by presenting a strawman.

That is a misread.

@Ovinomancer is talking about "what is Skilled Play" at the gears and levers, nuts and bolts layer.

For my part, you were framing Skilled Play as "exclusively a boardgame priority". Because that is not correct, I addressed your framing to say "no, Skilled Play in TTRPGs is not exlusively a priority that stems from the archetecture of boardgaming...why (?)...because boardgames do not require (and therefore structure conversation to produce) a shared imagined space which the players leverage to facilitate components of Skilled Play."

My part was appending that last sentence to your position in order to distinguish boardgames from TTRPGs.

I'm quite confident @pemerton (and Ovinomancer...and Campbell...and surely others) agree with what I've written above. As of right now, its not clear to me that you agree with what I've written above (hence why I am trying to accomplish the exercise I set out for us this morning - focusing on Skilled Play components of specific games in order to illustrate these things).

 

[Manbearcat]

Each of your items had a sentence description and system noted for it. Are you really in good faith saying that from my headers you were not able to discern which of your lines was referenced? You listed -

Dude...please. Yes, I am saying that. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying I attempted to clarify what you wrote because it doesn't hew to the list provided and I want to focus like a laser beam on Specific Game + Specific Facet of Game. I don't want there to be any confusion about anything. I don't want to write up a giant post only to have you (or anyone else) say "I disagree with the premise because that isn't what I wanted you to talk about."

I need to know exactly:

Which game
Which Skilled Play component listed

I literally gave you a list that you can just copy and paste from (now I've given you a template above). Please just copy and paste from that list.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I

When I say 'story' in context of an RPG, I just mean the sequence of events unfolding at the table and the manner they're described.

And so do I. This idea that it requires a narrow definition of story is incorrect. The point about story curation isn't that, it's about the GM choosing outcomes to make a better story. That story happens is not questioned.

 

[pemerton]

Take the OP concern for trivialising the fight with the BBEG, which - so far as I understand - is counted an SP move.

The OP isn't using "skilled play" to mean Gygaxian skilled play. It's being used just in the ordinary language sense - playing with technical skill, which (the OP asserts) has long been a part of D&D play.

There are some RPGs in which this broader notion of playing with technical skill has no, or virtually no, application. Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark and Wuthering Heights would all be examples.

I think there may be at least one RPG where there is no significant scope to play with technical skill, because like the games mentioned in the previous paragraph there are few (if not quite no) mechanical parameters to be optimised; but in which Gygaxian skilled play is feasible. That would be Tunnels & Trolls.

 

[clearstream]

That is a misread.

@Ovinomancer is talking about "what is Skilled Play" at the gears and levers, nuts and bolts layer.

What layer do you think I was talking about?

For my part, you were framing Skilled Play as "exclusively a boardgame priority". Because that is not correct, I addressed your framing to say "no, Skilled Play in TTRPGs is not exlusively a priority that stems from the archetecture of boardgaming...why (?)...because boardgames do not require (and therefore structure conversation to produce) a shared imagined space which the players leverage to facilitate components of Skilled Play."

Ah, I see. This is perhaps an unfortunate misunderstanding. Typically, if someone says "No, that dress is not exclusively red, it is also stitched with sequins" the implication is that the dress is "red" AND "stitched with sequins". Otherwise they would say that the dress is not red at all.

Bringing things back, is there any boardgame component to Skilled Play? Does boardgamey stuff matter at all, or is it discounted completely? Isn't B/X quite boardgamey? Weren't those tight mechanics something you earlier said were important or useful for Skilled Play?

I'm quite confident @pemerton (and Ovinomancer...and Campbell...and surely others) agree with what I've written above. As of right now, its not clear to me that you agree with what I've written above (hence why I am trying to accomplish the exercise I set out for us this morning - focusing on Skilled Play components of specific games in order to illustrate these things).

If one has not made up ones mind already, then Skilled Play at this point is still feeling very slippery. As soon as I try to pin it down, it morphs into something else. Is it this? I ask? "Oh ho", is the answer - "that and more" - and then later, "but not really that at all, it was quite a different that, that I was referring to".

Could I just get an honest definition? At the gears and levers, nuts and bolts layer. What are the parts? So far, I think you and others have listed the following (and I put these solely to strawman)

1. Written rules, concretely the sort printed in Moldvay Basic
2. Game mechanics arising from said rules
3. Prepared maps
4. Prepared traps
5. Prepared monsters
6. Perhaps ad-hoc versions of the above?
7. Fiction
8. Imagined space
9. Granular engagement by players with the fiction or imagined space (although as "language" is verboten, I don't know how this works at a nuts and bolts, gears and levers layer)
10. Some mode of play - terms of the magic circle - comprising principles such as
    1. Do not skip grains of engagement with the fiction or imagined space through use of game mechanics
11. Some mode of DMing - terms of the magic circle - comprising principles such as
    1. Framing, who might control it and how
12. Other (including deletions or revisions)

I suspect that 10.1 is fundamental, although I am having trouble pinning anyone down on it. No one seems willing to commit to it or revise it to show what their commitments really are.

 

[clearstream]

Dude...please. Yes, I am saying that. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying I attempted to clarify what you wrote because it doesn't hew to the list provided and I want to focus like a laser beam on Specific Game + Specific Facet of Game. I don't want there to be any confusion about anything. I don't want to write up a giant post only to have you (or anyone else) say "I disagree with the premise because that isn't what I wanted you to talk about."

I need to know exactly:

Which game
Which Skilled Play component listed

I literally gave you a list that you can just copy and paste from (now I've given you a template above). Please just copy and paste from that list.

I literally just copy and pasted your list, bolding the first part of the lines that I intended. I added nothing. I hewed mightily to the list you provided by copying... nay, faithfully carved it in pixels formed from the parched myelin sheaths of my dying synapses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But what you are doing is something like this:

PERSON 1:

* Structure of play matters.

* Rules and whether you have to follow them or not matters.

* GMing principles matter.

* Authority distribution matters.

* Action resolution mechanics and attendant techniques matter (like tiered results + Fail Forward/Success With Complications vs Binary Succeed/Fail)

* Whether a game is table-facing or GM-facing matters.

* Whether all this stuff flows directly into what the game says it’s supposed to do matters (or whether you have to go outside of all of the above stuff to get the game to do what it claims or does).

All of this stuff constrains and focuses the “play space” for every participant at the table and supports a unique play agenda and play experience.

CRIMSON LONGINUS:

Nah, any individual iteration of each of those things doesn’t focus or constrain the “play space” for individual participants (or at least not for the GM) any more or less or differently. Following from that, any individual configuration of any iteration of each of those things becomes irrelevant. It’s all navel gazing.

Because at the broadest level of zoom possible, any GM input is always about the same stuff and unable to be hemmed in:

An expression of the GM’s biased priors to “find the fun” and “curate a story”, and neither system nor GM discipline has any say in that.

---

That is my reading of how you’re positioning yourself in this thread.

The stuff you mention can absolutely matter. And you still cannot escape subjective preference based calls. This is collaborative storytelling and people will bring their preferences in it and they will matter, no way around it. It feels to me that people try to use technical jargon and buzzwords, to obfuscate what's actually happening at the table. Like when @Campbell says 'think what feels true' (none of it is true, you're still creating fiction) or 'advocate for the NPCs' or 'advocate for the world' these are still all just ways to describe creating a good story. Or when people say to take account what challenges the beliefs of the characters' or to come up with 'interesting thing,' these again are just aspects of creating a good story. The GM will make subjective calls, those calls will be influenced by their idea of a 'good story' (in a broad sense) there is no way around that, nor there need to be and it is silly to pretend otherwise.