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

[hawkeyefan]

What you're hearing--not just from me--is that the story elements and the game elements in D&D do not contradict or contravene each other in the way you seem to think they do.

They don’t always. But they absolutely may.

An example being a showdown with a main villain. He’s been built up as a primary antagonist, he’s been shown to be capable and cruel and scary. The PCs scry and plan well and manage to catch him alone.

Due to action economy, this guy can‘t take on the whole party and hope to win. Do you let the PCs beat the snot out of him in what may be an anticlimactic way? Or do you fudge his resources a bit and allow him to somehow get some help in the fight (reinforcements, a random group of his underlings arriving, summoning, etc.) so that this moment that’s been built up goes more as expected?

Which is more important to the GM: game or story?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'll punch anyone who says story...

 

[prabe]

They don’t always. But they absolutely may.

An example being a showdown with a main villain. He’s been built up as a primary antagonist, he’s been shown to be capable and cruel and scary. The PCs scry and plan well and manage to catch him alone.

Due to action economy, this guy can‘t take on the whole party and hope to win. Do you let the PCs beat the snot out of him in what may be an anticlimactic way? Or do you fudge his resources a bit and allow him to somehow get some help in the fight (reinforcements, a random group of his underlings arriving, summoning, etc.) so that this moment that’s been built up goes more as expected?

Which is more important to the GM: game or story?

Leaving aside a few things (mostly scenario design) ...

The players in that instance have changed the story, haven't they? It's not about the main villain being scary and cruel and capable; it's about the PCs catching him unawares and--you're very likely correct about this--pounding the snot out of him.

The thing is, the story is not written before it happens--the story emerges from play.

 

[prabe]

I'll punch anyone who says story...

I hope I managed to make my point without making you want to punch me ...

 

[Fenris-77]

I hope I managed to make my point without making you want to punch me ...

Hah, joking, completely. My point was more about the game being the player bit, and the story being ... something else. Once the scene is in play you need to play it straight, i.e. game. In the example @hawkeyefan gave, I would have added minions sufficient to make up the difference, but whatevs. If the encounter is big bad versus party and they're going to clean him, then they clean him. I might try to get creative, but I'm not going to negate or obviate player success to do so.

 

[prabe]

Hah, joking, completely. My point was more about the game being the player bit, and the story being ... something else. Once the scene is in play you need to play it straight, i.e. game. In the example @hawkeyefan gave, I would have added minions sufficient to make up the difference, but whatevs. If the encounter is big bad versus party and they're going to clean him, then they clean him. I might try to get creative, but I'm not going to negate or obviate player success to do so.

I think we are very much mostly on the same page, here. The players changed the story by playing the game. From that point you need to run it straight, or I think you end up with a dishonest story.

The game is played forward, the story is apparent looking backward ...

 

[Oofta]

I think the problem is the basic premise. As others have said, long rests are not "earned". In addition I don't plan "stories". I have events, organizations with various goals and motivations, people or monsters associated with those.

The story emerges from play and how the PCs interact with the world at large. So if the PCs take a long rest, the world continues, opponents react to what has happened and so on.

It's not a question of skilled play vs story. It's the PCs interacting with my best effort at a living, breathing world.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Leaving aside a few things (mostly scenario design) ...

The players in that instance have changed the story, haven't they? It's not about the main villain being scary and cruel and capable; it's about the PCs catching him unawares and--you're very likely correct about this--pounding the snot out of him.

The thing is, the story is not written before it happens--the story emerges from play.

I would agree with you. But do you think other GMs may not?

I can say that maybe 10 years or so ago, I may very well have felt the need to let the villain be the major obstacle I had built him up to be. That not doing so was counter to what had been established, and would be a let down to the players. That they earned a meaningful victory and for that to happen there had to be a meaningful showdown.

I’ve changed my approach quite a but since then, but I know I wasn’t alone in that view, and I know plenty of folks still have it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Lots of GMs would go a different way there I think.

 

[prabe]

I would agree with you. But do you think other GMs may not?

I don't think everyone is as good a GM as you or I so of course I can believe there are GMs who'd handle it differently.

I can say that maybe 10 years or so ago, I may very well have felt the need to let the villain be the major obstacle I had built him up to be. That not doing so was counter to what had been established, and would be a let down to the players. That they earned a meaningful victory and for that to happen there had to be a meaningful showdown.

I’ve changed my approach quite a but since then, but I know I wasn’t alone in that view, and I know plenty of folks still have it.

I think I've changed my approach over the past decade or two, as well. I have gamed with a couple GMs who'd change the scenario after the players had determined what it was (such as by scrying) but I don't think I gamed with them for very long.