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

[prabe]

A typical 4e combat plays very much like a lengthy remake of a fight scene from Rocky or The Karate Kid or Zorro - the conflict breaks out, the protagonists find themselves set back/on the ropes/under pressure, then they dig deep into their reserves, sometimes literally get their second wind, and prevail.

I have no doubt that it can feel cinematic, but a scene--however much time it takes, and however much it might reveal about the character/s in it--is not a story. There might be a narrative to it, yes, and pacing, but it's not a story.

A further difference is playing to experience a story in my sense, where that story (i) is not pre-planned and (ii) will emerge without anyone having to curate it.

If you're playing to experience a written story, that's an adventure path. If you're playing to experience a structured story the game generates, then the game rules are curating the fiction. In either event, the players are pretty much just along for the ride.

In my experience, playing AD&D will struggle to deliver this without fairly heavy curation. (The version that gets closest, in my experience, is the original OA.) Given the close resemblance of 5e to AD&D for these particular purposes, I'm prepared to assert, with some but not total tentativeness, that the same is true of it.

I do not believe I have asserted that a structured story--complete with three-act structure, rising action, and suchlike--is what emerges from 5E play. A narrative--and an interesting narrative--certainly can.

I'd say that the game is written to generate the experience of playing through a story, because it's written to be used with Adventure Path type published adventures; in this case generating the experience of playing through a story is not the same thing as generating a story (though different tables going through the same Adventure Path might generate varying narratives).

Yet it is widely discussed as a GMing technique. And the cover of I6 Ravenloft depicts Strahd brooding on his castle parapet.

Yes. Given that I think trying to emulate literature in TRPGs is a bad idea, it shouldn't be a surprise that I think foreshadowing is a pretty bad GMing technique. I mean, putting a gun on the mantelpiece is a thing, but as a GM that's really more like establishing the fiction so you can remain consistent with it.

Part of the rationale for the soft move/hard move approach of PbtA is to achieve the same effect as foreshadowing, but without the need to curate in respect of it.

I can tell you that to me as a player it doesn't feel like foreshadowing, and it doesn't feel entirely uncurated.

OK. But I think it would be silly to deny that no RPG designer or player has ever been concerned with it. The history of TSR publications from the DL modules through 2nd ed AD&D through 5e adventure paths shows that the biggest commercial publisher of RPGs thinks that achieving story in the sense that I am using it, which is the same as in the sense of @Manbearcat's "storytelling imperative", is an important thing.

The history of RPG design and GM advice is laden with horrible ideas, at least as much as good ones. The commercial success of crap doesn't mean it's not crap. See the recent discourse about Shrek.

The existence and comparative success of PbtA and Fate as non-D&D systems shows that there are players of non-D&D RPGs who think that story is an important thing.

Both of those games talk a lot about story that emerges from play, and the story that emerges in play, IME, isn't anything like structured fiction, even in PbtA or Fate.

The tension to which the OP draws attention arises out of a particular clash, that can occur in some RPGs but not all due to details of system and technique, between the logic of technically skillful game play and the desire for story as more than just a sequence of fictional events.

The tension that arises in the OP arises out of a clash between a GM's desire to write a story and the players' desire to change it. My feeling is that if the players aren't going to be allowed to change the story, there's no point to play.

I think that would be a largely uhelpful thing to say. It's would be like saying that tossing a coin instead of making a decision is "letting the coin, or the rules of the coin-toss, make the decision". As a casual metaphor that's harmless enough; but of course the truth is that a coin-toss is an alternative to making a choice, not a particular mode of deciding (hence why we have integrity commissions for lotteries and casinos!).

Heh. My approach to using a coin-toss is to define the options, toss the coin, and go with the result I find myself hoping for. If I don't find myself hoping for a specific result, I go with what the coin shows.

That aside, I don't think it's unhelpful at all to point out that a game built to generate a specific shape of fiction is removing the ability of the people around the table to decide the shape of the fiction. If following the rules of the game generates a specific form or structure of story, the game is curating that--and maybe it's worth looking at how.

The whole point of "story now" systems and the techniques that they rely on is to allow the story to emerge in the experience of play (not just in retrospect) without anyone having to think about it or curate it.

Narratives absolutely emerge. Structured stories less so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A random though about foreshadowing: I don't think it is that hard to do in RPG. It is just a connection between two things, which is easy enough to weave. And 'failed foreshadowing' isn't noticeable (i.e. a thing happened that were supposed to thematically connect to another thing later, but the latter thing never happened.) Random unconnected things happen in RPGs all the time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have done collaborative storytelling, using the excellent game A Penny for My Thoughts.

I would not characterise any of my RPGing as collaborative storytelling. And much of my RPGing I would not even characterise as collaborative story creation (eg my Classic Traveller play is a bit hit-and-miss in this respect; I've played a couple of sessions of AD&D over the past few years and they were completely story-free).

This doesn't make any sense to me. Did events happen, were those events described, were there characters who had personality and motivations, did those characters do things and have discussions? That's a story. Possibly an incoherent one, but a story nonetheless.

 

[prabe]

A random though about foreshadowing: I don't think it is that hard to do in RPG. It is just a connection between two things, which is easy enough to weave. And 'failed foreshadowing' isn't noticeable (i.e. a thing happened that were supposed to thematically connect to another thing later, but the latter thing never happened.)

Yes. It's easy to work backward and establish something that's happened as foreshadowing something that's happening. That's part of what I mean when I say the narrative is more obvious looking back than in play.

Random unconnected things happen in RPGs all the time.

So do random connecting things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. It's easy to work backward and establish something that's happened as foreshadowing something that's happening. That's part of what I mean when I say the narrative is more obvious looking back than in play.

So do random connecting things.

That's random foreshadowing!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

So let me ask you something. Let's say I'm running 5E D&D and I have a PC who's some kind of chosen one type character. He's got a greater destiny and is working toward that destiny. It's baked into his character at the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, & Flaws level, and it comes up regularly in play; many of the adventures that the character gets up to are about learning this destiny, and moving toward it.

I think this is a common enough trope that I think we all get it.

So let's say we're a few levels in....it's clear this kid is meant to be a big hero, and the campaign villain is connected to him, and a lot of the events in the fiction revolve around these concepts. The bad guys largely know he is some kind of chosen one and want to stop him from acheiving his power/birthright/destiny.

The PCs get into a dangerous combat, and the dice start to turn.

GM A decides to have the opponents spread their attacks around a little bit, or to maybe spend a turn here or there boasting, or some other less than optimal action. This GM is doing so because he wants to keep the story of the chosen one going. He is curating that story.

GM B decides to continue as established and have the bad guys target the chosen one PC almost exclusively. Eventually the PC goes down, and they still target him, ensuring that his death saves are failed. His story ends here.

It seems you hold the view that both of these GMs are valuing the story of the chosen one equally; would you say that's the case?

Both GMs are of course influencing how the campaign will proceed from this point, but one is doing so out of a sense of "The Story" and the other is simply proceeding according to what's been established in the fiction, and let's it turn out however it may.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So let me ask you something. Let's say I'm running 5E D&D and I have a PC who's some kind of chosen one type character. He's got a greater destiny and is working toward that destiny. It's baked into his character at the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, & Flaws level, and it comes up regularly in play; many of the adventures that the character gets up to are about learning this destiny, and moving toward it.

I think this is a common enough trope that I think we all get it.

So let's say we're a few levels in....it's clear this kid is meant to be a big hero, and the campaign villain is connected to him, and a lot of the events in the fiction revolve around these concepts. The bad guys largely know he is some kind of chosen one and want to stop him from acheiving his power/birthright/destiny.

The PCs get into a dangerous combat, and the dice start to turn.

GM A decides to have the opponents spread their attacks around a little bit, or to maybe spend a turn here or there boasting, or some other less than optimal action. This GM is doing so because he wants to keep the story of the chosen one going. He is curating that story.

GM B decides to continue as established and have the bad guys target the chosen one PC almost exclusively. Eventually the PC goes down, and they still target him, ensuring that his death saves are failed. His story ends here.

It seems you hold the view that both of these GMs are valuing the story of the chosen one equally; would you say that's the case?

Both GMs are of course influencing how the campaign will proceed from this point, but one is doing so out of a sense of "The Story" and the other is simply proceeding according to what's been established in the fiction, and let's it turn out however it may.

Both are curating the story, it's just a different direction for the story. One is the classic chosen one story, whereas the other leads to Red Wedding style shocking defeat, and the other characters have to deal with the fact that the 'chosen one' is dead, and the prophecies were lies etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Both are curating the story, it's just a different direction for the story. One is the classic chosen one story, whereas the other leads to Red Wedding style shocking defeat, and the other characters have to deal with the fact that the 'chosen one' is dead, and the prophecies were lies etc.

Well no. One is pushing for a specific story ahead of time and one isn’t.

In one, the GM is saying “this is what I want to happen” and in the other that is not the case.

You’re ignoring the premeditated element.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well no. One is pushing for a specific story ahead of time and one isn’t.

In one, the GM is saying “this is what I want to happen” and in the other that is not the case.

You’re ignoring the premeditated element.

Both are choosing things that will result predictable outcomes. On what basis is the GM who decides to murder the chosen one doing this? You're again creating a bizarre dilemma where one option is that GM chooses thing for a stated reason, opposed to GM choosing another option for no reason at all.

And if you're saying, 'that's the GM feels the NPCs would do'* certainly that could be equally true for the other set of actions too, the GM may just feel that these are the sort of arrogant people who would spend time gloating and taking down the allies of the 'chosen one' first without understanding or caring to what that leads to.

And if GM could do either whether or not they cared about taking the game into particular direction, why does it matter one bit what their motivations were if the results are same to the players in either case? (i.e. either option could be chosen.)

* NPCs the GM created, so had full control of choosing their motivations, nature, competence etc.

A competent GM can predict (and will automatically predict) likely outcome of certain things. Those things will result the story going into certain direction. If you intentionally made decisions that make the story take certain direction, you intentionally chose that direction. You cannot pretend that you didn't. This is equally true for both sets of NPC actions in your example. And the GM will always make these choices, if they don't, there's no game.

 

[Manbearcat]

Both are choosing things that will result predictable outcomes. On what basis is the GM who decides to murder the chosen one doing this? You're again creating a bizarre dilemma where one option is that GM chooses thing for a stated reason, opposed to GM choosing another option for no reason at all.

And if you're saying, 'that's the GM feels the NPCs would do'* certainly that could be equally true for the other set of actions too, the GM may just feel that these are the sort of arrogant people who would spend time gloating and taking down the allies of the 'chosen one' first without understanding or caring to what that leads to.

And if GM could do either whether or not they cared about taking the game into particular direction, why does it matter one bit what their motivations were if the results are same to the players in either case? (i.e. either option could be chosen.)

* NPCs the GM created, so had full control of choosing their motivations, nature, competence etc.

A competent GM can predict (and will automatically predict) likely outcome of certain things. Those things will result the story going into certain direction. If you intentionally made decisions that make the story take certain direction, you intentionally chose that direction. You cannot pretend that you didn't. This is equally true for both sets of NPC actions in your example. And the GM will always make these choices, if they don't, there's no game.

Are you familiar with Hockey or American Football?

These are sports with extreme structure. Hockey players in particular are repeatedly making the following post-game statement "we trusted our structure."

They are saying this because "their structure" is a set of principles, rules, and constraints that govern everyone's roles and responsibilities which gives them a certain sort of coherency of purpose and volition and (assuming they follow it, get good at it, and possess the requisite athletic/cognitive traits) prowess. If "someone goes rogue", they "lose the integrity of their structure." When they "lose the integrity of their structure", something else happens that doesn't proceed from the loop of "we trusted our structure" > "we followed our structure" > "reliably, x result occurred as a byproduct." That "something else" is virtually never good (particularly long term as a tendency to "go rogue" proliferates and people start not trusting other players to be where they're at and do what they're supposed to do...so "going rogue" is something of a "virus" in this case).

Now Hockey and American Football are not TTRPGs, but structure (and all of its properties and downstream effects on the constituent parts of the system) is structure...and "lack of structure" or "going rogue" is "lack of structure/going rogue"...even if "lack of structure/going rogue" is "working as intended." The two are not the same things in inputs, in the machinery of the process, in the experience of the process, and in outputs no matter whether its a ball sport or a combat sport or or a military op or planting a garden or setting up a traffic paradigm or setting up a system of governance or playing a game.

Simply having a system where the participants each have cognition isn't where things end. That is the starting point. What happens downstream of that cognition (primarily how answers to pressures and sensitivities emerge within a system and which ones are ultimately selected for) is where the interesting things happen.