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

[pemerton]

@clearstream

I'm finding your posts quite hard to follow. And that is compounded by me not really knowing which RPGs you have in mind.

Your account of "skilled play" is also strange. What you say was said in the "other thread" - the currently active "skilled play" thread - isn't accurate. No one thinks ability checks can't be part of skilled play - ability checks (of a sort) are used in classic D&D to resolve the opening of doors. What makes it "skilled play" in the Gygaxian sense is the extent to which it involves playing the fiction. But in @Manbearcat's OP, he is using "skilled play" in a more generic sense, as he has already explained upthread.

 

[prabe]

A perfectly feasible D&D campaign could start with B2 KotB, played in classic "skilled play style"; then move to (let's say) The Isle of Dread and Castle Amber played the same way; then White Plume Mountain; and finishing, just for laughs, with Tomb of Horrors.

This isn't a campaign I would want to GM or play in - see my most recent posts in the D&D General - Is this a fair trap? thread - but I think it's feasible, and is the sort of campaign that inspired traps like the one under discussion in that thread.

While I wouldn't want to GM or play in such a campaign, either, I'd say the table has decided they want the story (or at least the narrative) to be about a series of dungeon crawls. Of course, I think story emerges from play, even if the table don't really want it to ...

Even when we move away from that style of D&D (or D&D-adjacent eg Tunnels & Trolls) play, it still needn't be the case that we have story curation. The ideal of a whole host of RPG design is that the game works if the players make decisions based on what they think their characters would do and the GM makes decisions based on what the mechanical outcomes permit and what they think the fiction demands.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "story curation." I mean, effectively, deciding what the story is about. Someone at the table decides on the characters' goal/s, and (I'd argue) the story that emerges from play is about the characters' pursuit thereof.

 

[prabe]

Here is the "Point A to Point B model" that Czege endorses, from earlier in the same thread:

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​

5e D&D allows the players to control aspects of Point A - hence the whole discussion about what do to when the players establish that their PCs take a long rest. Strongly scene-frame play gives authority over this to the GM. Of course the GM will have regard to what is interesting in choosing point A - as well as the sort of thematic stuff that Czege talks about the GM might also have regard to what will challenge the players in their technical play (this is not a big part of scene framing in Prince Valiant; it is a big part of scene-framing in 4e D&D). But choosing stuff that is thematically interesting is not dictating a story outcome; any more than choosing stuff that is technically interesting is not dictating any particular course of "skilled play".

I think that once the players decide what Point B is, and get there, that (probably) becomes Point A'--and I don't really see a way that makes sense to say the GM "created" that, since it's where the players have taken the game. I think this is where I at least am not seeing a conflict between "story" and "play." By playing the game, the players shape and direct and establish and define the story.

 

[clearstream]

Your account of "skilled play" is also strange. What you say was said in the "other thread" - the currently active "skilled play" thread - isn't accurate. No one thinks ability checks can't be part of skilled play - ability checks (of a sort) are used in classic D&D to resolve the opening of doors. What makes it "skilled play" in the Gygaxian sense is the extent to which it involves playing the fiction. But in @Manbearcat's OP, he is using "skilled play" in a more generic sense, as he has already explained upthread.

In that other thread, you said -

"We can then step back from Wish to other spells to see the extent to which they elide some standard procedure of play: eg Passwall or Dimension Door circumvents (to a degree) the standard skilled play of geography and architecture; Rope Trick or Leomund's Tiny Hut circumvents (to a degree) the standard skilled play of managing the duration of an incursion into a dungeon; Continual Light completely circumvents the skilled play of light sources; etc. This brings us back to Unseen Servant which doesn't circumvent anything at all as far as I can see; nor, as far as I can see, does Transmute Rock to Mud."

I am happy to find myself mistaken, but what did you mean if it wasn't that using some game mechanics would not count as SP? Others also posted that using a stochastic mechanic like a Charisma (Persuasion) check to overcome a game obstacle would not count as SP.

EDIT Perhaps I missed @Manbearcat's post articulating SP. You don't have a link to hand to it do you?

 

[Campbell]

I think that once the players decide what Point B is, and get there, that (probably) becomes Point A'--and I don't really see a way that makes sense to say the GM "created" that, since it's where the players have taken the game. I think this is where I at least am not seeing a conflict between "story" and "play." By playing the game, the players shape and direct and establish and define the story.

I think you are placing too much weight on story and not enough on curation here. As in actively making decisions on the basis of what makes for the best story. It's the active curation of the story both by the GM and sometimes other players that can conflict with play because it subverts the feedback loops for play. When we start placing story outcomes ahead of the process of play, prioritizing it above other concerns. It's entirely different from enjoyment of the unfolding narrative as part of the play process.

In many sorts of play choosing what the endpoint looks like runs contrary to the purpose of play. The point is that we are playing the game to find out how things go. When an individual player (including the GM) decides what that should be or tries to actively direct it to a desired outcome they are placing their vision of things above the play process. They are breaking the Magic Circle of play.

On the other hand if part of the shared understanding we have is that the game is fundamentally about the GM's story or weaving a story together as a group than the (often unstated) process of play becomes about us all working together to achieve those story ends. No conflict. Conflict only occurs when different priorities are being expressed at the table at the same time. Where we are fundamentally trying to play different games or especially if there is confusion about what our priorities are in the moment. Especially if that leaves me conflicted about what I should be prioritizing in the moment.

The amount of tolerance for such conflicts we have is going to vary pretty dramatically from person to person. Lack of clarity of purpose is pretty damn big deal to me personally. Trying to navigate what's truly up for grabs in a game where our priorities might shift any moment is deeply stressful to me as a player who wants to develop mastery at whatever it is we are doing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

(Not bothering to quote specific posters, as several made relevant posts.)

The GM is always curating the story to some degree, if you think you're not, you're fooling yourself. Any situation could have countless differnt logically coherent outcomes that match preceding facts, the dice rolls and what-have-you. It is bizarre to think that there would be some one 'neutral' outcome for each situation. Consciously or not, the GM is constantly deciding and choosing between differnt options, and their narrative preferences will influence this.

 

[prabe]

I think you are placing too much weight on story and not enough on curation here. As in actively making decisions on the basis of what makes for the best story. It's the active curation of the story both by the GM and sometimes other players that can conflict with play because it subverts the feedback loops for play. When we start placing story outcomes ahead of the process of play, prioritizing it above other concerns. It's entirely different from enjoyment of the unfolding narrative as part of the play process.

It's possible I'm mis-distributing weight, as you say, but A) I think that story emerges nigh-inevitably and B) the difference between someone doing something because it fits the narrative, or makes sense, or is in-character, or makes a better story, is not always apparent--and so long as the choice is an honest one, and fits the play at the table, I don't think it's likely to subvert anything about play. This may be a place where I just have to respectfully disagree with you--though I think I share your preference for a narrative that unfolds over one that is pre-determined.

In many sorts of play choosing what the endpoint looks like runs contrary to the purpose of play. The point is that we are playing the game to find out how things go. When an individual player (including the GM) decides what that should be or tries to actively direct it to a desired outcome they are placing their vision of things above the play process. They are breaking the Magic Circle of play.

On the other hand if part of the shared understanding we have is that the game is fundamentally about the GM's story or weaving a story together as a group than the (often unstated) process of play becomes about us all working together to achieve those story ends. No conflict. Conflict only occurs when different priorities are being expressed at the table at the same time. Where we are fundamentally trying to play different games or especially if there is confusion about what our priorities are in the moment. Especially if that leaves me conflicted about what I should be prioritizing in the moment.

I think if a player is having their character attempt to achieve their goals, that seems A) like a player trying to direct play an B) not likely to break the Magic Circle of Play. It also seems plausible for the players to have story goals that are some degree of divergent, but not have that make for a playstyle conflict; this may be another disagreement, or a mere misunderstanding on my part.

The amount of tolerance for such conflicts we have is going to vary pretty dramatically from person to person. Lack of clarity of purpose is pretty damn big deal to me personally. Trying to navigate what's truly up for grabs in a game where our priorities might shift any moment is deeply stressful to me as a player who wants to develop mastery at whatever it is we are doing.

I agree that clarity around the table is a good thing, but I expect I am more tolerant for divergence of preference and/or purpose--and there are some things (including, I suspect, what you mean by "what's up for grabs") that I'm happy to have emerge.

 

[clearstream]

In many sorts of play choosing what the endpoint looks like runs contrary to the purpose of play. The point is that we are playing the game to find out how things go. When an individual player (including the GM) decides what that should be or tries to actively direct it to a desired outcome they are placing their vision of things above the play process. They are breaking the Magic Circle of play.

I really like the bolded part and it perhaps feels odd that I seldom see it in definitions of game. When I read a novel for the first time I might find out how things ago. Unless I am forgetful, on subsequent reads I will already know how things go. When I play a game, even repeatedly, it is typical - and perhaps essential - that I can still find out how things go.

So far I have - games require goal-oriented play by entities external to the game who follow rules to find out how things go.

On the other hand if part of the shared understanding we have is that the game is fundamentally about the GM's story or weaving a story together as a group than the (often unstated) process of play becomes about us all working together to achieve those story ends. No conflict. Conflict only occurs when different priorities are being expressed at the table at the same time. Where we are fundamentally trying to play different games or especially if there is confusion about what our priorities are in the moment. Especially if that leaves me conflicted about what I should be prioritizing in the moment.

It probably won't help your case, but I have been trying to express something similar

 

[Ovinomancer]

(Not bothering to quote specific posters, as several made relevant posts.)

The GM is always curating the story to some degree, if you think you're not, you're fooling yourself. Any situation could have countless differnt logically coherent outcomes that match preceding facts, the dice rolls and what-have-you. It is bizarre to think that there would be some one 'neutral' outcome for each situation. Consciously or not, the GM is constantly deciding and choosing between differnt options, and their narrative preferences will influence this.

Again, you're mistaking the GM making a choice for curation of story. You're not grasping what it means to curate story. There's a big difference.

Let's take an interaction with an NPC, a captive kobold. The party is attempting to interrogate the kobold for information about the dungeon. The kobold absolutely knows about some of the traps and other denizens, because they live here, so this information will be useful, and will allow the party to bypass a number of challenges. The PCs succeed at the check to interrogate the kobold, and the GM now has to narrate the results.

I have to make a decision as the GM here, but it's not so that any decision I make is story curation. If I follow the success of the check, I would honor the intent and have the kobold reveal the information and then wait to see what the party does with it. This may very well mean that the party now skips a number of challenges and so carries lots more resources into later parts of the dungeon.

Or, I could feel that the party bypassing the challenges makes for a less interesting story, because I the final areas of the dungeon are designed for a low-resource party in challenge. So, I kinda honor the check, and have the kobold start babbling at the top of it's lungs, screaming don't hurt me between talking of traps and denizens, and then say that this has alerted the denizens in the next room. This means that I nominally honor the check, but in a way that makes that party still face at least some of the planned challenges and so preserves the overall challenge better. Also, it's funny, I think.

So, here you have a choice the GM has to make. Of course the GM is going to make things up, but this isn't story curation per se. Story curation comes in when the GM is making the choice based on a better story outcome specifically. Everything the GM does and everything the players do will of course lead to a story you can tell of what happened, but if story curation is to have any value, it cannot just be all of this, and it hasn't been. Story curation is about manipulation of the outcomes of a play loop in order to serve the GM's conception of what makes for a better story.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, you're mistaking the GM making a choice for curation of story. You're not grasping what it means to curate story. There's a big difference.

No there isn't.

Let's take an interaction with an NPC, a captive kobold. The party is attempting to interrogate the kobold for information about the dungeon. The kobold absolutely knows about some of the traps and other denizens, because they live here, so this information will be useful, and will allow the party to bypass a number of challenges. The PCs succeed at the check to interrogate the kobold, and the GM now has to narrate the results.

I have to make a decision as the GM here, but it's not so that any decision I make is story curation. If I follow the success of the check, I would honor the intent and have the kobold reveal the information and then wait to see what the party does with it. This may very well mean that the party now skips a number of challenges and so carries lots more resources into later parts of the dungeon.

Or, I could feel that the party bypassing the challenges makes for a less interesting story, because I the final areas of the dungeon are designed for a low-resource party in challenge. So, I kinda honor the check, and have the kobold start babbling at the top of it's lungs, screaming don't hurt me between talking of traps and denizens, and then say that this has alerted the denizens in the next room. This means that I nominally honor the check, but in a way that makes that party still face at least some of the planned challenges and so preserves the overall challenge better. Also, it's funny, I think.

So, here you have a choice the GM has to make. Of course the GM is going to make things up, but this isn't story curation per se. Story curation comes in when the GM is making the choice based on a better story outcome specifically. Everything the GM does and everything the players do will of course lead to a story you can tell of what happened, but if story curation is to have any value, it cannot just be all of this, and it hasn't been. Story curation is about manipulation of the outcomes of a play loop in order to serve the GM's conception of what makes for a better story.

In both situations the GM makes a choice about the direction of the story. I could just easily frame it as the GM thinking that cowardly and possibly not so smart kobold could easily panic and the dungeon is filled with denizens so it is likely that someone would hear, but because the story is kinda dragging and the characters are low on resources they let the kobold to remain calm and offer useful information so that the story can progress smoothly and we get to the climatic end battle before everyone gets bored. One option isn't any more 'curation' than another.