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

[pemerton]

it's not a binary, it's a continuum. GM is always doing the curating

Who decides what the PCs' goal is, who the antagonists are, etc?

Here's a summary of Curse of Strahd, taken from the Wikipedia page:

Adventurers are mysteriously drawn to the realm of Barovia which is surrounded by deadly fog and ruled by the vampire wizard Strahd von Zarovich. This gothic horror adventure takes the players on a course through Barovia that culminates with a vampire hunt inside Castle Ravenloft. Using a deck of tarokka cards, the Dungeon Master can randomize parts of the adventure such as the identity of a powerful ally, the placement of important magic items across Barovia, and Strahd's location within Castle Ravenloft.​

Here are some features of the scenario:

* It takes place in a realm where the PCs are strangers, and hence where there is no basis for the players to exercise any authority over the basic background fiction (eg a player can't posit that their PC makes contact with a friend or ally from their past);

* It is already established that the scenario will end with a vampire hunt in a particular castle - so both antagonist and the location of the climax are pre-established;

* The GM determines (via card draw) who will be a powerful ally of the PCs;

* It's predetermined that various magical items will be important to the adventure.​

That seems like there is a lot of GM decision-making about the fiction; and it seems to invite quite a degree of curation by the GM and/or player-GM collaboration to make sure all that pre-conceived stuff actually happens.

I'd be interested to hear from @hawkeyefan about how closely his play experience reflected the above.

Here's a bit about the Burning Wheel game I GM:

* It takes place in or near places where the PCs have lived for some time and have friends and contacts whom they are able to call on from time to time;

* The principal antagonists (Joachim and Jabal) were determined by the players: the first as an inimical relationship of two PCs, the second as the result of a failed Circles check initiated by one of the players;

* The PCs allies have included NPCs established via Circles checks, and NPCs introduced by me as GM whom they have esetablished relationships with via play;

* The most prominent four items have been (i) a cursed angel feather, introduced into the fiction by me as GM in response to a player author Belief, and described as cursed as a result of a failed Aura Reading check; (ii) a silver-nickel mace introduced into the fiction by a player as something his enchanter PC had been working on before the start of the campaign; (iii) evil black arrows made by Joachim, established by me as a consequence of a failed attempt by that player to have his PC find the mace in his PC's and Joachim's old and now ruined tower (this also helped confirm Joachim's status as antagonist); (iv) Joachim's blood, shed because the PCs failed to stop an assassin killing Joachim in Jobe's tower, and taken by one of the PCs because he had a Belief about brining Joachim's blood back to his master (a dark naga who wants to use the blood in a ritual involving spirits).​

This is a spectrum in the same way that none at all and heaps and heaps are a spectrum.

 

[clearstream]

The contrast with, say, Passwall is clear. A STR check to open a door is part of the process of granular extrapolation of the fiction. Passwall allows the players to bypass granular engagement with some chunk of the fiction. Using Passwall well might be clever, but it's not a manifestation of skillfully engaging the fiction. That's one reason it's high level - there an implicit assumption that the player of a 9th level MU has already proven his/her mettle and is entitled to abilities like this spell that allow cutting to the chase rather than having to earn one's way into some particular area of the dungeon.

I don't find it clear at all because I can think of scenarios where casting passwall sits nicely within Gygax's model of successful play. A very obvious way that it can meet the test is if where and when to cast it requires perspicacity by the player. Gygax advises players to avoid distractions, mitigate side-dangers, and drive to their objective. And nearly every mage who has it will meet your second test, as they will be 9th level or higher.

Abstract definitions are no use here - we're talking about actual historical phenomena and traditions.

I can accept this, so long as everyone is comfortable with the baggage of discussing traditions. Local versions of the tradition will vary. The varying versions may well contain inconsistencies and contradictions. No one is free to say my take on it is wrong, given that their takes are not definable. Except, that is, in the usual way of traditions that some groups will claim the high-ground and deliver pronouncements. Often with appeal to ancient authorities while brandishing weighty tomes... the heavier the better!

I hope you take that last not too seriously, although you have to see some parallels here

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

These responses are going to be my off-the-cuff thoughts on how these things you've written above facilitate Skilled Play. I'm not sure exactly what work you want this to do, but perhaps it will illuminate aspects of first principles and boundaries.

1. Since you've separated out PC build/resolution mechanics from "written rules", I have to assume there is some purpose for doing so. Presumably, the work you're intending here is in the "written" aspect of this, so I'm running with that. Game systems that are both (a) codified, (b) table-facing, and (c) reliably/intuitively actionable (contrast with rules that are GM-facing and encoded in a haphazard/byzantine/obscure/overly loose way...invariably requiring GM-as-cipher and subsequent extrapolation of impacts/interactions) better serve Skilled Play because players are navigating decision-points from a position of strength (strength here meaning all of overall cognitive facility, ability to weight options/extrapolate downstream interactions/fallout, and leverage in disputes).

2. Game mechanics are extremely important, but not just in isolation, but how they affect the overall loop of play. How this PC build mechanic interacts with that action resolution mechanic which interacts with this gamestate which impacts that downstream gamestate which opens up the movespace for this later decision-point which impacts the risk/reward portfolio of this limited-use resource (on and on).

3. If you're navigating an obstacle course (a dungeon) and the system governs play via granular accounting of resources (including time, varying movement speeds contingent upon action, action economy, Hit Points, encumbrance, equipment loadout, spell loadout and how each of these interact with each other), limited-use or rationed resources (which may or may not be recovered during the effort), and many 2nd and 3rd order considerations of how the present gamestate will interact with all possible future gamestates, the spatial properties of the obstacle course and how it is stocked/reacts to impacts are paramount. If a GM doesn't have either (a) a pre-play map that is keyed and stocked or (b) a robust procedural generation method, then play is going to risk having the skillfulness of decision-points around each of the above (and therefore the through line of the decisions for the delve at large) be muted. What is necessary is that all of the relevant aspects of the obstacle course (the spatial dimensions, the number of obstacles, the nature of the obstacles, their theme, their interconnectedness) be attendant to the above aspects of play. The less attendant they are to the above, the more skillfulness in the navigation of the delve becomes muted.

Now, I'm going to caveat something here because it is important. A different paradigm of PC build, resolution mechanics, resource orientation changes the paradigm of play dramatically. The more abstract things become and/or if there is a complete paradigm shift in how all of these things interact, the properties of skillful play are going to change. A simple example is that a zoomed-out action/adventure, thematic crawl without the granular features (and relationships) above might feature no prepped map (or a very abstract map) at all but is governed by some other procedure/mechanical architecture (# of obstacles to be defeated before a delve of x tier is completed) may still be comprised of skillful play...but it will be a different type of skillful play than what is detailed in the first paragraph (overwhelmingly, the skill will be about discrete scene resolution and how you marshal thematic resources to unlock/manage the thematic move-space...with less or consequentially different downstream effects on the "delve-at-large").

---

Alright, that is already a lot of stuff. I'm going to stop there and make sure that makes sense and answer any questions that may have arisen about those 3.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me, what @Crimson Longinus is drawing attention to is the possibility that all modes contain imperatives. I read Gygax calling attention to an imperative for skillful DMing to offer surpassing challenge.

Running Tomb of Annihilation the other day, the characters were faced with numerous skeletons. Seeing as these must be of unwilling Omuan dead who were victimised by Acererak, I decided they had no free will - effectively automatons - and the players made good use of spirit guardians on that basis. Although I was attempting to present the scene neutrally, without any curated story imperative, I think I influenced it greatly in my choices. I have made choices about the rest rules that make attrition a larger factor in my campaign, so I wasn't too concerned that an easier or harder fight with the skeletons would diminish the overall lethality of the Tomb. Still, I could have well decided that these were warrior skeletons (and maybe should have, given other context) and had them fight shrewdly... increasing greatly the chance of a character death at that point.

I felt free from imperative, but perhaps I can never really - as a human - accomplish that? More importantly, if Gygax was an authority on "skilled play" his words present DMing imperatives.

Yes, Gygax had imperatives for the DM. They're pretty obviously toward play as a challenge rather than to produce some sort of satisfying story. Although he does actually put forth some conflicting thoughts on this the more of his writings you consider.

I don't think anyone is advocating for the "neutral arbiter GM" in this discussion. The GM should have an agenda, or even more than one agenda.

All that's being said is that agenda does not need to be, and often may not be, "produce the best possible story".

 

[pemerton]

I don't find it clear at all because I can think of scenarios where casting passwall sits nicely within Gygax's model of successful play. A very obvious way that it can meet the test is if where and when to cast it requires perspicacity by the player. Gygax advises players to avoid distractions, mitigate side-dangers, and drive to their objective. And nearly every mage who has it will meet your second test, as they will be 9th level or higher.

Of course it will be part of successful play. You wouldn't use it for unsuccessful play!

But it's not a manifestation of the skill of Gygax's skilled play. It's a way of circumventing fiction - in this case, certain corridors, rooms, etc - to cut to where one wants to go in the dungeon.

A potion of etherealness is similar in many respects.

EDIT: Here's a way of using Passwall that would be full-blooded "skilled play" in Gygax's sense:

* The players know that there is a doorless, windowless etc room behind a wall (henceforth "the prison room");

* The players have an unbeatable threat (eg a really tough golem) to deal with;

* Recognising they can't beat the threat in straight up combat, the wizard uses Passwall to create a way through to the prison room, the fighter then manoeuvres/pushes the threat into the prison room, and the Passwall is then dispelled or Wall of Stone is used to seal the prison room or something similar is done to trap the threat.​

The above could also be done in Rolemaster. In RM the spells would all require a check to avoid failure (a difference from D&D) but that is just a difference in when the systems require checks in order to establish that some change to the fiction is allowed (analogous to how D&D requires STR checks to open doors); it doesn't change the basics of the playing of the fiction.

What would dilute the claim to skilled play in the RM case is that RM doesn't require memorisation of spells and so the players don't have to make clever choices about spell loadout and then make clever choices about what to do with a finite list of loaded spells. It seems relevant to 5e's support for skilled play that it is also much more liberal in its spell memorisation rules. (Though not quite as liberal as RM.)

 

[clearstream]

1. Since you've separated out PC build/resolution mechanics from "written rules", I have to assume there is some purpose for doing so.

I didn't separate them in my words that you quoted, nor intend them to be separated. You might be referring to game mechanics. Sicart defined mechanics neatly as "methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world" and in much discussion of games, mechanics are understood to arise from rules, but to be something on top of them. A game mechanic might be built out of multiple rules and other game components. I'd like to preserve this distinction as it does a lot of work.

Example. One rule might be that fireball has a range of 150'. The game mechanic for fireball is the whole thing: the area of effect, the spell slot used in casting, the saving throw of the targets, the damage and halved damage, the damage type.

Presumably, the work you're intending here is in the "written" aspect of this, so I'm running with that. Game systems that are both (a) codified, (b) table-facing, and (c) reliably/intuitively actionable (contrast with rules that are GM-facing and encoded in a haphazard/byzantine/obscure/overly loose way...invariably requiring GM-as-cipher and subsequent extrapolation of impacts/interactions) better serve Skilled Play because players are navigating decision-points from a position of strength (strength here meaning all of overall cognitive facility, ability to weight options/extrapolate downstream interactions/fallout, and leverage in disputes).

2. Game mechanics are extremely important, but not just in isolation, but how they affect the overall loop of play. How this PC build mechanic interacts with that action resolution mechanic which interacts with this gamestate which impacts that downstream gamestate which opens up the movespace for this later decision-point which impacts the risk/reward portfolio of this limited-use resource (on and on).

Or maybe my above was wrong, but so far we are in a good degree of alignment.

3. If you're navigating an obstacle course (a dungeon) and the system governs play via granular accounting of resources (including time, varying movement speeds contingent upon action, action economy, Hit Points, encumbrance, equipment loadout, spell loadout and how each of these interact with each other), limited-use or rationed resources (which may or may not be recovered during the effort), and many 2nd and 3rd order considerations of how the present gamestate will interact with all possible future gamestates, the spatial properties of the obstacle course and how it is stocked/reacts to impacts are paramount. If a GM doesn't have either (a) a pre-play map that is keyed and stocked or (b) a robust procedural generation method, then play is going to risk having the skillfulness of decision-points around each of the above (and therefore the through line of the decisions for the delve at large) be muted. What is necessary is that all of the relevant aspects of the obstacle course (the spatial dimensions, the number of obstacles, the nature of the obstacles, their theme, their interconnectedness) be attendant to the above aspects of play. The less attendant they are to the above, the more skillfulness in the navigation of the delve becomes muted.

Absolutely agree. These elements can be prepared in advance, or they sometimes are developed on the fly and then recorded for consistence if returned to.

Now, I'm going to caveat something here because it is important. A different paradigm of PC build, resolution mechanics, resource orientation changes the paradigm of play dramatically. The more abstract things become and/or if there is a complete paradigm shift in how all of these things interact, the properties of skillful play are going to change. A simple example is that a zoomed-out action/adventure, thematic crawl without the granular features (and relationships) above might feature no prepped map (or a very abstract map) at all but is governed by some other procedure/mechanical architecture (# of obstacles to be defeated before a delve of x tier is completed) may still be comprised of skillful play...but it will be a different type of skillful play than what is detailed in the first paragraph (overwhelmingly, the skill will be about discrete scene resolution and how you marshal thematic resources to unlock/manage the thematic move-space...with less or consequentially different downstream effects on the "delve-at-large").

Agreed and I feel this has broad application. I can well understand groups who discount skillful use of stochastic mechanics. However, over the span of a campaign, using them well takes tremendous skill... much to the advantage of the characters. It's key sin is perhaps engaging with the written rules and their entailed mechanics, rather than with the fiction... but then we would be rather at risk of separating out the fiction from the rules and mechanics and all the looseness, imperatives, and such that comes with.

The fact that one group is disinterested in achieving their ends through stochastic mechanics, doesn't mean that another group that enjoys them is not being skillful. "Skilled play" as written about by Gygax encompasses players using the tools at their disposal intelligently... whatever those tools may be. And a DM knowing that - to offer surpassing challenge. Thus to your point, a different paradigm might shift the properties of skillful play. This is where I suppose the skill challenge mechanics of 4e are rather interesting.

 

[clearstream]

But it's not a manifestation of the skill of Gygax's skilled play. It's a way of circumventing fiction - in this case, certain corridors, rooms, etc - to cut to where one wants to go in the dungeon.

This is where we find ourselves in different schools of the same tradition. Gygax's skilled play certainly does include clever use of passwall. Groups you are familiar with may have come to discount it, but I cannot find anything in his written principles that justifies that. Instead I find -

Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells? Is there some magic item which one of the party members possesses that will be of special help, or general assurance of survival, in this adventure?

Avoid unnecessary encounters. This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently.

Added to which, given his influence over the contents of the book, the presence of the passwall spell in its pages amounts to an endorsement of the spell's use. Or perhaps a better way to approach it is this: where does this exclusion of passwall and its ilk come from?

 

[Manbearcat]

I didn't separate them in my words that you quoted, nor intend them to be separated. You might be referring to game mechanics. Sicart defined mechanics neatly as "methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world" and in much discussion of games, mechanics are understood to arise from rules, but to be something on top of them. A game mechanic might be built out of multiple rules and other game components. I'd like to preserve this distinction as it does a lot of work.

Example. One rule might be that fireball has a range of 150'. The game mechanic for fireball is the whole thing: the area of effect, the spell slot used in casting, the saving throw of the targets, the damage and halved damage, the damage type.


Or maybe my above was wrong, but so far we are in a good degree of alignment.


Absolutely agree. These elements can be prepared in advance, or they sometimes are developed on the fly and then recorded for consistence if returned to.


Agreed and I feel this has broad application. I can well understand groups who discount skillful use of stochastic mechanics. However, over the span of a campaign, using them well takes tremendous skill... much to the advantage of the characters. It's key sin is perhaps engaging with the written rules and their entailed mechanics, rather than with the fiction... but then we would be rather at risk of separating out the fiction from the rules and mechanics and all the looseness, imperatives, and such that comes with.

The fact that one group is disinterested in achieving their ends through stochastic mechanics, doesn't mean that another group that is enjoys in that is not being skillful. "Skilled play" as written about by Gygax encompasses players using the tools at their disposal intelligently... whatever those tools may be. And a DM knowing that - to offer surpassing challenge. Thus to your point, a different paradigm might shift the properties of skillful play. This is where I suppose the skill challenge mechanics of 4e are rather interesting.

That all looks right to me (and yep, you're exactly on top of what I was alluding to at the bottom there with Skill Challenges in 4e or closed scene resolution generally).

So I assume we're pretty much on the same page in 1-3? No issues? No disagreement? No confusion?

If so, I'll work my way further down the list the next opportunity I get.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, Gygax had imperatives for the DM. They're pretty obviously toward play as a challenge rather than to produce some sort of satisfying story. Although he does actually put forth some conflicting thoughts on this the more of his writings you consider.

I don't think anyone is advocating for the "neutral arbiter GM" in this discussion. The GM should have an agenda, or even more than one agenda.

All that's being said is that agenda does not need to be, and often may not be, "produce the best possible story".

So far as I can tell, we are in agreement. I like your use of the word "satisfying". I believe it can do a lot of work here.

 

[pemerton]

This is where we find ourselves in different schools of the same tradition. Gygax's skilled play certainly does include clever use of passwall. Groups you are familiar with may have come to discount it, but I cannot find anything in his written principles that justifies that. Instead I find -





Added to which, given his influence over the contents of the book, the presence of the passwall spell in its pages amounts to an endorsement of the spell's use. Or perhaps a better way to approach it is this: where does this exclusion of passwall and its ilk come from?

Why do you think I'm hostile to the Passwall spell? I'm just trying to talk about its role in play.

4e D&D includes (a) rules for provisions, and for foraging. It also includes (b) a magical item called Basket of Everlasting Provisions. Those two elements of the game - (a) and (b) - don't play the same role. The primary purpose of (b) is to render (a) irrelevant. The Dark Sun supplement addresses this issue head-on, giving general advice on game elements that it is important to exclude if you want to achieve the "Dark Sun" feel of play.

If someone wanted dungeon geography to still be a significant challenge to parties including 9th level MUs, then they would not include the Passwall spell in their game. If they wanted overland geography to be a significant challenge, they would not include the Teleport spell. Etc.

I don't quite get why you're making such heavy weather of this.