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

[pemerton]

One objection I've read a few times in this thread might boil down to asserting that RPG doesn't contain a win condition

I think this is pretty implausible for much RPG play. Eg many RPGs feature wargame-y combat rules, and these clearly do have a win condition ie that the character the player is controlling survive the combat, preferably victoriously.

It's easy to conjure up variations - eg in some contexts one player might quite reasonably sacrifice his/her PC to save one or more others - but these don't show there is no win condition. It just shows that it is a bit more complex than my standard-case description of it in the preceding paragraph.

When I look at a typical TSR or WotC module it is replete with encounters that presuppose win-conditions, either the combat one I just described or some other sort: eg avoiding/disarming the trap; persuading the NPC; surviving the inclement weather; etc.

These win conditions are often "local" ones - ie they arise in the context of the encounter/scene which is just one component of the ongoing game. But I don't find that very persuasive as a reason to think that, overall, RPGing is play witout win conditions.

My initial thought is that to get a RPG with no win conditions you need a RPG in which, when situations are framed, there is no expectation as to what counts as a success in resolving it. Off the top of my head I can't think of any TSR or WotC module that exemplifies this. The only published adventure I can think of that comes close - from memory it has some loss conditions but I'm not sure it has any win conditions - is the Robin Laws adventure Demon of the Red Grove which is in the HeroWars Narrator's Book.

RPGs I can think of that might be seen as trying to systematise the absence of win conditions would be Wuthering Heights (rolls can succeed or fail, but I would say that scenes don't have expectations of what counts as success in resolving them) and maybe The Dying Earth (PC advancement is entirely metagame driven and so independent of what actually happens to the PC in play; and while PCs can definitely do better or worse in any given moment of play, the overall trajectory of play is that it doesn't matter and you just suck it up as a player while doing your best to trigger the advancement conditions for your PC).

 

[clearstream]

Let's say my party has carefully navigated the dungeon while marshalling our resources well and discovered the secret room where we learned the BBEG's weakness and are now set to curbstomp him. This outcome will be anti-climatic -- we're set to blow through it in a single round and the BBEG's gonna go out like a punk. If the GM changes the encounter so that it's now a serious fight, with some neat twists, all because it will make it more exciting and climatic, these expectations are at odds!

I suspect you may not have heard an example that works for you because of your assumption of a win con. If you expected and insisted that the only interesting story was one with a serious fight, no example that sets aside that expectation and insistence will please you.

 

[clearstream]

I think this is pretty implausible for much RPG play. Eg many RPGs feature wargame-y combat rules, and these clearly do have a win condition ie that the character the player is controlling survive the combat, preferably victoriously.

Some definitions for game include a win condition, many include scoring. I suspect a helpful refinement might be to say - a way to measurably progress. That noted, how do you feel about PHB 5 - "There's no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood."

When I look at a typical TSR or WotC module it is replete with encounters that presuppose win-conditions, either the combat one I just described or some other sort: eg avoiding/disarming the trap; persuading the NPC; surviving the inclement weather; etc.

Overcoming one obstacle does not win the game, which is open-ended. Just as the death of a character doesn't lose the game, another can be rolled. Perhaps though, you can see how this line of reasoning unfolds? For you, beating an encounter counts as a win. What about for those for whom it does not? Are they then in the position of denying the very possibility of SP?!

 

[pemerton]

Related to the topic of skilled play: D&D General - Is this a fair trap?

 

[pemerton]

how do you feel about PHB 5 - "There's no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood."


Overcoming one obstacle does not win the game, which is open-ended. Just as the death of a character doesn't lose the game, another can be rolled. Perhaps though, you can see how this line of reasoning unfolds? For you, beating an encounter counts as a win. What about for those for whom it does not? Are they then in the position of denying the very possibility of SP?!

I think the statement is implausible. If there is no winning or losing, then the combat rules for 5e D&D are very badly designed. Why create so many points for the player to inject his/her skill - in choosing targets, choosing what ability to use, managing the action economy, etc, etc - if the PC's success in the combat doesn't matter?

(This thought is only reinforced by the XP rules - XP for winning combats - and the encounter design rules, which introduce or at least imply a notion that combat difficulty is part of the challenge of play.)

As I posted, I think there are candidate RPGs without win conditions. But I don't see 5e D&D as one of them.

 

[clearstream]

I think the statement is implausible. If there is no winning or losing, then the combat rules for 5e D&D are very badly designed. Why create so many points for the player to inject his/her skill - in choosing targets, choosing what ability to use, managing the action economy, etc, etc - if the PC's success in the combat doesn't matter?

(This thought is only reinforced by the XP rules - XP for winning combats - and the encounter design rules, which introduce or at least imply a notion that combat difficulty is part of the challenge of play.)

You don't find combat enjoyable on its own merits? For instance, is Chess only fun if I win? If I can enjoy Chess while losing, then perhaps I can enjoy Chess on other grounds as well. The rich feel of the pieces. The clack of wood. The surprising moves of my opponent.

It's curious. In a great many games, almost everyone loses. And yet we still feel winning is crucial? Say we commence a 6-player game of Dune: most of those players are going to lose... why did they bother in the first place? These sorts of questions go double for all (or nearly all) of the games we might call RPGs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sigh. If I added a dragon to yours and showed how the dragon just results in an unsatisfying death of the PCs then I haven't changed your example because you didn't preclude that in the few sentences you provided? Come on, let's not do this.

Yeah, because describing the attitude, demeanour and reactions of an NPC is totally the same thing than adding a dragon... OK, mate.

 

[chaochou]

For instance, is Chess only fun if I win?

No, but chess is meaningless unless you understand what winning involves and then try to win.

In Dune every player understands what is required to win and is trying to acheive that.

Why are you attempting to obfuscate these simple truths?

 

[clearstream]

No, but chess is meaningless unless you understand what winning involves and then try to win.

In Dune every player understands what is required to win and is trying to acheive that.

Why are you attempting to obfuscate these simple truths?

In the words of Reiner Knizia "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." Where I depart from Reiner is that I believe it is having a goal - whether or not that goal is winning - that is important.

For example, you are probably familiar with the phenomena of griefing in MMORPGs. Typically, griefers set themselves a goal of creating misery for other players. In their minds, they "win" when the other players are miserable, not on the usual terms. We might then also look at Assassin's Creed Discovery Tour, which responds to another player behaviour - what I call touristing. The goal of the tourist player is not to win, but to explore the game world. If you like, they "win" when they have explored the parts of the world interesting to them.

If we are so flexible as what counts as winning, then - perhaps surprisingly - this "simple truth" becomes less clear. Once any goal I set myself counts as winning, I might set any goal including not winning. Players evince extremely diverse behaviours, and I would challenge you to make a definitive and limiting list of player goals.

So how might that impact on the argument? One obvious way is to imagine that SP comes with a set of goals that is differentiable from SI (storytelling-imperative). That doesn't say of course that any such goals will be mutually exclusive as mooted in the OP, although it doesn't tell us they are in harmony, either. It does tell us that SP goals can't be used to judge what will be important to SI players except where those goals are shared (ironically, SP goals can only be used to judge SI goals when there is no conflict between them).

Thus avoiding an easy combat outcome might well be a goal of SP and yet not a goal of SI. SP expects a conflict... where none is forced to exist. Reiner was addressing game as boardgame - SP - and not game as gameful-narrative or SI elements that might be fused with game.

 

[pemerton]

You don't find combat enjoyable on its own merits? For instance, is Chess only fun if I win? If I can enjoy Chess while losing, then perhaps I can enjoy Chess on other grounds as well. The rich feel of the pieces. The clack of wood. The surprising moves of my opponent.

It's curious. In a great many games, almost everyone loses. And yet we still feel winning is crucial? Say we commence a 6-player game of Dune: most of those players are going to lose... why did they bother in the first place? These sorts of questions go double for all (or nearly all) of the games we might call RPGs.

When I used to play 5-player five hundred, only one of the five players could win. That didn't mean there were no win conditions. Nor did it mean that the game was fun only if I won. I've also played MtG with many players (6? 8?) at the table, and probably never won (I'm not a particularly good MtG player) but there were win conditions, and it was fun.

But as @chaochou has posted, games like five hundred and MtG are structured around win conditions, and playing to win. Combat in D&D is much the same in this respect.

Are you familiar with the RPGs I've mentioned that I think do not have win conditions? Do you have a view on whether I'm right about them?