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

[pemerton]

The OP pits a mechanical concern (benefit mechanically from a rest) against an authorial concern (heightened tension). Some posters describe that SP is supposed to eschew reliance on mechanics (e.g. no relying on Charisma (Persuasion) to elide persuading the Queen). Under that view, it cannot be a conflict between SP and the authorial concern because SP wouldn't rely on the rest mechanic anyway. It's possible (I am not certain at this point) that the dilemma presented is not properly one of SP versus authorial concerns at all.

I don't think that adjudicating the fiction in Gygaxian or Pulsipherian "skilled play" has anything to do with the sort of "storytelling imperative" the OP refers to. @Manbearcat is thinking more of DL and post-DL story-oriented RPGing, I think.

 

[pemerton]

But "regrouping" on the GM side, in this context, is just a way for the GM to "negate" the long rest. Because I don't think there are any constraints, in 4e, on the way in which the GM can change/evolve the fiction during PC "downtime".

That feels like a slippery argument. It might amount to saying that when a player's tactic doesn't prevail, that is because their GM negated it.

I think a DM ought to know their BBEG's motives and resources. Just as a trap might trigger if not first found, a BBEG should act according to their nature. Better still, characters should have found ways to learn about the motives and resources of the BBEG. It would surely be an SP move for them to second-guess their foe! Can we rest now? Will we gain more than our foe does? They ought be anticipating their foe - as part of SP - just as much as anticipating that this curious overlap of walls might contain a secret door, or that the vault floor may well be lethally trapped.

@hawkeyefan talked a bit about this in relation to Strahd - there is no itemisation of his resources. I think it's pretty hard to put hard limits around a BBEG's resources, especially in D&D which doesn't formalise wealth, relationship, contacts, etc mechanics.

I think @loverdrive is pointing to the same sort of thing here as I was:

I could also pull another ace out of my sleeve and come up with some kind of twist that keeps the game from ending... But that's also basically invalidating "the perfect plan"

 

[tetrasodium]

=

I agree that a lot of skilled play is related to resource management....spells being the big one, but also ki, action surges, superiority dice, and so on.

Where I think it’s significantly different is that these resources are far more easily managed and recovered than in previous editions. Short rests are important here, and long rests as well; but it’s hard to ignore the fact that the GM has a huge role in when these can occur.

Take the fighter. Only after all superiority dice, spells, action surge, indomitable uses, and second winds have been used does the fighter now function like one from 2E and earlier editions. Now, of course the game is designed around this increased efficacy, but I mention it because 5E very clearly is designed not to punish less skilled play.

I think this was a clear design choice.

This is very true. 5e makes recovery trivial & moves most of the decision to recover them from the gm to the players almost fully if not entirely in many cases. Things like self recharging magic items further shift control. Then it all gets topped off by everything being tuned to endure an excessive slog of combats before starting to strain resources even a little. All of it combined makes managing resources trivial to the point that skillful management of them is barely noticeable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan talked a bit about this in relation to Strahd - there is no itemisation of his resources. I think it's pretty hard to put hard limits around a BBEG's resources, especially in D&D which doesn't formalise wealth, relationship, contacts, etc mechanics.

I think @loverdrive is pointing to the same sort of thing here as I was:

Right. He essentially has an entire region (county?) at his disposal. How many Vistani are there in Barovia? How many wolves are in the forests? How many vampire spawn can Strahd create? How many townsfolk would do as Strahd commands? And so on.

It’s difficult to quantify. And while the PCs may do something to somehow cut off a resource...let’s say somehow striking a deal with Madame Eva to remove the support of the Vistani, that still leaves plenty of wiggle room for the GM.

I imagine many GMs in 5E would run their own scenarios in a similarly loosely designed way often enough that this shouldn’t be an oddity. Especially since many GMs learn how to design their own scenarios based on the example set by published adventures.

=

This is very true. 5e makes recovery trivial & moves most of the decision to recover them from the gm to the players almost fully if not entirely in many cases. Things like self recharging magic items further shift control. Then it all gets topped off by everything being tuned to endure an excessive slog of combats before starting to strain resources even a little. All of it combined makes managing resources trivial to the point that skillful management of them is barely noticeable.

Right, it’s not as strong a concern. It still matters, but less than it may have in other editions. There was a clear shift away from allowing system mastery to grant huge benefits such as they did in the 3.X era.

 

[nevin]

first of all it's not "skilled play" It's resource management. That's all you gain from no rest. Second as long as we are stuck in the current pardigm of requiring everything to be balanced by the rules this argument will never end. I get that there are bad DM's and people want rules to reign them in. I get that inexperienced DM's need all the help they can get. But any Good DM should be able to make the encounters memorable with or without long rests. But the more rules, and requirements you add to the new DM's the harder it becomes for them to understand that they are the final balancing factor in everything. If the DM is so locked down by rules that they just throw stuff out and watch it happen it's always going to suck.

 

[tetrasodium]

first of all it's not "skilled play" It's resource management. That's all you gain from no rest. Second as long as we are stuck in the current pardigm of requiring everything to be balanced by the rules this argument will never end. I get that there are bad DM's and people want rules to reign them in. I get that inexperienced DM's need all the help they can get. But any Good DM should be able to make the encounters memorable with or without long rests. But the more rules, and requirements you add to the new DM's the harder it becomes for them to understand that they are the final balancing factor in everything. If the DM is so locked down by rules that they just throw stuff out and watch it happen it's always going to suck.

Resource management being nearly stripped is only part of it. Other design choices like concentration overuse & what are generally near pointless (de)buff/control spells further reduce the impact of reaching high levels of coordinated teamwork & planning.

 

[prabe]

To me, this is more about your idea of choosing what the story is about...a wounded and weary group surprising Strahd when he doesn’t expect it, or the heroes attacking at full strength with the vampire ready for them....than it is about skilled play.

I agree. I think if the players have that choice--attack by surprise while diminished themselves, or wait to attack until they were rested and ready and give Strahd time to prepare as well--then the decision might be a combination of weighing the odds and making the story of the final battle about whichever choice they make.

But if (in a different campaign) the players happen to go "combat as war" on Strahd, and do it well enough that the outcome is a curbstomp, I think they've made the story of the adventure about that, too.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've read the discussion from @Ovinomancer and you about 5e vs SP with interest. It doesn't really chime with my experience. I have played and DM'd all versions of D&D from Basic onward. I find 5e as concrete as any other version.

For example, resources - spell slots, concentration, ki, superiority dice, Hit Dice, inspiration, channeling, encumbrance, equipment lists, various class-specific pools, exhaustion, and a few recovery mechanisms. I have not found resource management to be "out the window" in 5e so there is a dissonance for me when reading that.

Similarly, the rules for 5e are tightly knit and concrete. It is a complete game system: there is little that cannot be managed with the help of one or other mechanic. If time permits, perhaps you could point to some B/X rules that can cast this "looseness" of 5e rules into the light?

This is really an aside from what the OP is meant to present, but I'll answer this quickly as it relates to Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert (which will touch upon some other recent posts, including your revision of the Strahd AP...I think it is?).

There are a few key features that make Moldvay Basic the pinnacle of D&D Skilled Play:

1) There is no tome separation of player and GM. There isn't this massive mystery of GMing which undergirds play. Overwhelmingly, the game is table-facing (some have tried to use the epithet against it, as they did with 4e, that its basically a "board game").

2) Overwhelmingly, the game is codified in that text. The edge cases where a GM is going to have to go outside of the encoded play loop and action resolution rules to resolve something is remote. And where it does happen, its trivially inferable how to handle it (because the game's engine is light enough and consistent).

3) There is no "story imperative"/alternative playstyles (and all of the permissible GM moves/latitude around that) in Moldvay Basic that impacts (or can impact) the through line of play. The game is about one thing and focuses on that one thing; map/key/stock a confined obstacle course (the dungeon), create characters to defeat it, and referee the game neutrally to see if the players can and "what their score is" (the treasure they pull out of the dungeon) if they do.

4) There is a long and detailed history of discussion about the implications of leaving the dungeon on Skilled Play. When your game's skill paradigm is basically predicated upon testing guile, risk management, and resource management, the constraints of high resolution mapped and keyed obstacle course vs an obstacle course that is neither (refer upthread to @hawkeyefan 's and @loverdrive 's conversation regarding Strahd's lack of itemization of his inventory/resources he can marshal...this is one instance of the problem), at least sufficiently so to govern play at the level that Moldvay Basic does it.

Put another way, when you leave the dungeon, the horizontal, vertical, temporal, opposition resource components of play all suddenly become either profoundly more difficult to adjudicate/resolve and track or effectively impossible to do so (at least in the sort of constrained way that testing Skilled Play calls for). This is in part because map & key play becomes impossible outside of the dungeon but also, the sort of mechanics that Moldvay Basic uses to resolve that "dungeon as obstacle course" paradigm don't transfer well.

Expert suffers from this in a way that Moldvay Basic does not.

5) Ease of use + integration + beautifully conceived play loop. Exploration Turns + Exploration Action Resolution + Wandering Monsters + Required Rest + Monster Reaction + Morale + Encumbrance + Equipment Loadout + Gold for xp + Low Level (therefor bounded) play.

Outside of the Mapped/Keyed/Stocked paradigm above (which constrains permissible player moves and GM moves alike), these things above tightly govern the play loop of Moldvay Basic. The upshot of their integration is that they create pressure points on Skilled Play and boundaries/constraints for both players and GM.

Time and space tightly constrain the play space. The Wandering Monster clock + Required Rest pressure points loom like a Sword of Damocles. Exploration Action Resolution is straight forward, relatively punishing, and tightly rationed (and basically works as a dice pool mechanic for group tasks). Monster Reaction + Morale systemitizes key aspects of NPC response (which work with the paradigm of neutrality in refereeing). Encumbrance is abstracted and easy to use (therefore people will use it) and it integrates seamlessly with Equipment Loadout and Movement and has serious implications on Gold for xp work. All of these easy-to-use and integrated aspects of play work in service of the play loop/pressure points/score-keeping apparatus of play.

The more difficult things are to use, the more players will be inclined to elide them or outright eliminate them play. The less integrated things are, the more opaque their immediate and downstream effects are in testing Skilled Play. AD&D suffers from both of these problems. Moldvay Basic suffers from neither.

6) The impacts on play of level expansion. When your game is only level 1-3, again, the conceptual play-space (permissible action declarations, resources that can be deployed et al) is constrained and the implications of other aspects of system/play become considerably less amplified (the inverse is the case as levels accrue).

 

[jgsugden]

Folks are overlooking the stories we have out there where the hero wins without overpowering their enemy in a tough battle.

Dr. Strange - The climax is resolved by outsmarting the enemy. Dr. Strange lacked the power to beat Dormammu in a fight, so he pulled a rules lawyer move. And yet, it is still the peak of the movie and establishes who and what Dr. Strange is as a hero.

In most movies where there is a climactic battle, the point where the tide turns is often not at the end of the final battle. It is often at the start. The hero "figures it out" and from that point on, the enemy has no hold over the hero.

Captain Marvel - From the moment she comes into her full power, there is nothing in that movie to rival her. She slaps down Yon-Rogg and obliterates the Kree fleet. She doesn't break a sweat and they make a point of making that clear. Yet, it is still a heroic and triumphant moment.

I find this thread very frustrating because DMs should understand story construction enough to realize the plethora of ways to resolve a story satisfactorily if the PCs end up being exceptionally strong relative to the enemy in that final battle. First and foremost: Celebrate the curb stomp! It makes them feel like heroes! If every battle is a struggle, they feel weak. PCs need to feel like they're awesome heroes, not the weaklings that barely survive.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Folks are overlooking the stories we have out there where the hero wins without overpowering their enemy in a tough battle.

Dr. Strange - The climax is resolved by outsmarting the enemy. Dr. Strange lacked the power to beat Dormammu in a fight, so he pulled a rules lawyer move. And yet, it is still the peak of the movie and establishes who and what Dr. Strange is as a hero.

In most movies where there is a climactic battle, the point where the tide turns is often not at the end of the final battle. It is often at the start. The hero "figures it out" and from that point on, the enemy has no hold over the hero.

Captain Marvel - From the moment she comes into her full power, there is nothing in that movie to rival her. She slaps down Yon-Rogg and obliterates the Kree fleet. She doesn't break a sweat and they make a point of making that clear. Yet, it is still a heroic and triumphant moment.

I find this thread very frustrating because DMs should understand story construction enough to realize the plethora of ways to resolve a story satisfactorily if the PCs end up being exceptionally strong relative to the enemy in that final battle. First and foremost: Celebrate the curb stomp! It makes them feel like heroes! If every battle is a struggle, they feel weak. PCs need to feel like they're awesome heroes, not the weaklings that barely survive.

This is a good point, though I don’t know if I can agree with the “weaklings who barely survive” bit at the end. And I absolutely love when players come up with a creative way to handle a situation; this is largely why I immediately voted “skilled play” in the poll. It’s only upon further discussion and consideration of some examples of actual play that I feel like I answered too hastily.

I don't think that every fight must be an absolute nailbiter. But I do think some confrontations lend themselves to that. Yes, sometimes you want to see the heroes outsmart or outmaneuver the villains and win the day. Other times, that might be dissatisfying.

Taking that into consideration is a big part of what a 5E GM has to do, I think.