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

[loverdrive]

I'd reframe "Storyteller imperative" as something like "Level-designer imperative", if I understood you correctly.

So, if I have a cool encounter that wouldn't work if the players have full resources, then I'll probably just ask them to not take a long rest. Easy.

 

[clearstream]

It is becoming clear that people are starting to smuggle in things that people might be reorienting the original hypothetical and then answering that.

That doesn't help us clarify the prioritization of Skilled Play vs Story Imperative here. That is bringing in a new element to the hypothetical (...maybe the players didn’t earn the Long Rest recharge?...maybe there are still questions there to be answered by GM extrapolation/rolling on a table?) and complicating the question. Don’t want to do that for this particular question. Just assume whatever variables are present in the game such that the players earned their Long Rest without punitive consequences to their nonmeta goals. Whatever that looks like, they did it. The issue at hand are the metaconsequences on climax/memorable story. This is not an issue for the players though because their job isn't to juggle that meta issue (their job is to advocate for their PCs, play skillfully, and not be jerks) and they can't even if they wanted to because they're not privy to those dynamics (those dynamics are GM-facing). The meta-concern is exclusively the GM's job to infer/intuit/resolve as they are positioned with the responsibility for “lead storyteller" and they're simultaneously the only table participant with exclusive access to offscreen/backstory/meta elements (eg "what is the encounter budget/BBEG resource dynamics that can be martialed for the upcoming climactic encounter" and the like).

So, again, don't change the hypothetical. The players earned their Long Rest recharge without downstream, nonmeta, punitive consequences. The question is whether the GM prioritizes honoring their efforts to get that Long Rest recharge or disables the recharge (through any number of blocks the GM can erect against the players) due to the metaconcern of the implications of the recharge upon "a memorable story/climactic encounter."

I feel a move like that invalidates the hypothetical. It sort of says - once things have gone awry, will they go awry? The thought-experiment can't drive honest and valuable intuitions once it is narrowed that way.

When did I stop delivering anti-climatic game sessions? Keeping in mind that I am only permitted to have stopped doing that if I drank from cup X. I'd better prioritise drinking from cup X in future, right?

I value your OP for presenting a potential conflict and asking how it might be resolved. For me, reading posters challenge the premises or introduce other concerns is an important aspect of the conversation. Not something that needs to be shutdown.

 

[clearstream]

But it happens all the time. And it has happened in the history of D&D a jillion times. And its certainly happened in the history of 5e at least 447,347 times (and that is just the running tally from 5e).

I'm not looking for the "git gud" GMing response by iserith. I'm looking for folks who have experienced this...in the wild...who have had to prioritize GUD PLAY over GUD STORY or vice versa.

If iserith's 5e play has never experienced this because he's the bestest 5e GM ever...Awesome. Your vote just counts as a "if this thing were to actually ever happen to me BUT IT NEVER WOULD OK but if it did I would prioritize GUD PLAY" hypothetical. I appreciate your input.

So if I were to beat my wife, would I use a frying pan? I'm not sure that can lead to trustworthy intuitions!

 

[clearstream]

My point was more about the game being the player bit, and the story being ... something else.

I found this line brought something into light for me. At odds with the instructions in the OP - which I understand and empathise with, but feel forced to subvert - I value most "gameful narrative" - where game and story are at one. It just feels so powerful and satisfying for all involved when that succeeds.

 

[Manbearcat]

But isn't that exactly what a DM is doing if they decide to override the players' efforts and choices in favour of something they think will be "more fun"?

So a few things here:

1) I think something is becoming clear at this point. People are perceiving my lead post as being more than an agnostic invitation for 5e GMs to (a) tally a vote in the poll and (b) post their testimonials on this subject.

It’s not anything more than that. I’m not embedding my personal position on the issue in the lead post. I’m describing a characteristic of a moment of play and inviting GMs to cast their vote. I mean anyone who has interacted with me knows my thoughts on this subject and my thoughts on subjects adjacent to this. That (my thoughts) is not interesting to me and won’t do any work here (“the work” being “see how 5e GMs to prioritize their play in a moment of conflicting priorities and responsibilities”).

Again, yes, I absolutely do have opinions on the subject, but that is not my purpose with this thread (or the FF and SWC poll thread I started...of which I haven’t interacted much).

2) You’re going to have to take the above up with WotC. WotC positioned 5e GMs such that they indeed are meant to infer “what is the most fun for my (“my” here meaning their own) table” from moment to moment (along with “how do we get a memorable story out of play?”) and deploy their Rulings (not Rules) and authority/roles as a means to facilitate that. By my reckoning, that is the apex GMing principle for 5e GMing: “find the fun and the memorable story > deploy rulings/scenario design/spotlight passing/theatricality to get there.”

And this will create heterogeneity across the population of all 5e tables...which was intentfully designed in (as a reaction to 4e’s historically unprecedented homogeneity...but absolutely not homogenous in total because there were some major 4e table outliers such as myself apparently).

---

So...yeah.

I’m asking 5e GMs how they make their inferences and extrapolations when charged with “finding the fun and memorable story” for their particular table...at a key moment of play...the resolution of which will either reward skill play that leads to anticlimax or do the inverse (reward the table with a greater chance for climactic conflict at the expense of rewarding skilled play).

If people don’t want to answer that or want to refuse the premise, or try to rearrange and reorient the premise...that’s fine.

Im not going to be involved in that conversation. There are lots of conversations that interest me. That one ain’t it.

But I’ll check out the poll data afterwhile because I’m curious!

 

[Manbearcat]

I found this line brought something into light for me. At odds with the instructions in the OP - which I understand and empathise with, but feel forced to subvert - I value most "gameful narrative" - where game and story are at one. It just feels so powerful and satisfying for all involved when that succeeds.

There are no “instructions” in the OP. This is a misreading of the OP.

The OP is citing a phenomena that has been going on at D&D tables for longer than the 36 years I’ve been involved in the hobby. It’s been the lament of GMs live, on forums (this one chief amongst them), at hobby shops, and in D&D mags of yore (because limited use resource suites and the inevitable impacts on play of the “recharged” gamestate).

I’m just presenting it in its 5e incarnation and posing the questions to 5e GMs specifically. My own position isn’t in that lead post.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd reframe "Storyteller imperative" as something like "Level-designer imperative", if I understood you correctly.

So, if I have a cool encounter that wouldn't work if the players have full resources, then I'll probably just ask them to not take a long rest. Easy.

They’re (Storyteller and Scenario Designer) absolutely related but they’re not the same thing.

But your answer to the lead post is a great one and it actually addresses this D&D lament (when the game is sensitive to a recharge how do I resolve this problem). It’s basically a D&D version of “hold on lightly.”

“Guys...the game can’t handle the recharge now and my scenario design doesn’t allow me to make a legitimate move (I mean I could make an illegitimate move against you!) against you to stop the recharge...

...can you just not recharge so we can find out what happens in the rest of the dungeon/BBEG battle? Otherwise, we may as well just elide the rest of the dungeon/the BBEG fight because it’ll be a fair accompli if you finish this out recharged with the big guns.“

 

[clearstream]

There are no “instructions” in the OP. This is a misreading of the OP.

Apologies if so. I did read this part of the OP as an instruction.

Please don't drag this into "False Dichotomy" territory. There are going to be moments where the results of Skilled Play will absolutely lead to Anti-climax (negatively affecting the impact and "memorablnessitude" of a key story moment). At these moments the Skilled Play and Memorable Story priorities are entirely at tension (and as a 5e GM, it is your principal job to facilitate these aspects of play). D&D players/participants/magazine articles/forums have discussed this since time immemorial. Just consider any moment like that if you don't like the example above. As a 5e GM, as an expression of your 5e GM-liness and the mandate afforded you...how do you typically respond? Which ball stays on the air...which ball hits the ground?

You've reiterated similar on a few pages of this thread. Seeing as I was putting myself at odds with it, I'm honestly glad to understand that it was not intended as an instruction. (I'm not being facetious: I accept your characterisation of your own posts!)

The OP is citing a phenomena that has been going on at D&D tables for longer than the 36 years I’ve been involved in the hobby. It’s been the lament of GMs live, on forums (this one chief amongst them), at hobby shops, and in D&D mags of yore (because limited use resource suites and the inevitable impacts on play of the “recharged” gamestate).

I’m just presenting it in its 5e incarnation and posing the questions to 5e GMs specifically. My own position isn’t in that lead post.

Those words made me reflect on my own experience: have I hit this? Yes, probably. A time where what the rules entailed was not the same as what might have told a better story (on whatever terms for "better" we care to apply).

I think it is through encountering such instances, that I have evolved my present style, which seeks a more seamless fusion of game and narrative... indeed, takes game as narrative. So then, in the past I agree I could have chosen one or other on your dichotomy. Today, that is no longer true for me.

 

[prabe]

You know I agree with you on this.

Well, I was pretty sure, yes.

However, don't you think that there is a HUGE contingent of people out there that would disagree with your appraisal here of "dishonest story." I mean, I don't even know why I'm saying "don't you think." We KNOW...for a FACT that a huge number of people (a) prioritize BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE GUD STORY MMKAY? over DO GUD PLAY THAT MAKES GUD STUFF HAPPEN FOR US and (b) they wouldn't agree that their net result of play is a "dishonest story."

I think there was a lot of GM-facing stuff (systems and advice) published in the 90s and probably early-aughts that prioritized things the way you're describing. I think most people now look at that as something of a nadir; players found it unsatisfying, rules and advice were written differently.

A lot of the people picking apart 5E on these fora seem to me like generals fighting some previous war. Or, possibly, they're proving correct Faulkner's comments about the past.

Further still, don't you think think that their actual play (initiate a block to a player move when a player couldn't have possibly inferred was out there, deus ex machina, changing rules, ignoring rules, ignoring the results of action resolution, when Skilled Play would lead to anticlimax) is supported in the actual rules text for 5e and in the Adventure Paths that 5e designers have put forth?

I do not think that sort of GMing is more-supported in the text of the rules than any other, and I think it's actually deprecated in some of the subtext. The adventures are a different thing, of course, and often published adventures--especially long ones--are really poor examples of what can/should emerge from play; even if a table is playing a long, published adventure, though, I don't think the rules are written in ways to encourage the kind of action-negation you're talking about.

(That said, there's an "Adventure Flowchart" in the new Guide to Ravenloft book that is ... entirely linear, with no branches at all. That ... is not a flowchart, and it's a really crappy example of adventure/scenario design.)

I'd probably go further and say that it may very well be the majority playstyle in all of D&D (to subordinate PLAY GUD to BUT STORY GUD when push comes to shove)?

I think the majority playstyle in 5E (if there is one) is the long, published adventures. Given that "PLAY GUD" in that context means "GET TO THE END OF THE ADVENTURE AND BEAT THE BBEG" I'm not sure there's quite the conflict even there that you think there is--I don't really see the appeal, though, and I avoid such games if at all possible, so someone else would have to elaborate on that.

 

[Necrozius]

Saying "You can try to long rest in a dungeon, but there is a decent chance it may be interrupted" can also be established upfront.

I'm genuinely surprised that it ISN'T the default assumption for D&D 5e gamers that there's always a possibility of long rests interruptions in dangerous locations.

Is this the general consensus in the gaming hobby? That the world goes on pause during long rests? That meta-mechanics trump the "reality" of the moment? That PCs are "entitled" to completely safe Long rests at regular intervals?

Fascinating (and very weird for me). I guess that I'll start making this explicit.