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

[Ovinomancer]

In this case, it was fidelity to what had been established for that NPC.

If I'm GMing and my gut tells me "this guy would run rather than face the PCs" and I'm not interested in making a confrontation happen in order to make the story exciting (let's say we're near the end of the session, and the players have made it clear they really want to confront this guy, etc.), then my decision is not about the best story. My decision is about what I think the NPC would do in that situation.

Now, I suppose what you're trying to say is that by having him flee, I'm still curating the story as a GM, but that's not really the case. Yes, my decision is certainly influencing the way play will go, but my decision was not made in order to make it go in that direction. I'm not choosing something based on what will be the best story.

I think the distinction is a bit subtle, but I do think it is there.

It's not subtle at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In this case, it was fidelity to what had been established for that NPC.

If I'm GMing and my gut tells me "this guy would run rather than face the PCs" and I'm not interested in making a confrontation happen in order to make the story exciting (let's say we're near the end of the session, and the players have made it clear they really want to confront this guy, etc.), then my decision is not about the best story. My decision is about what I think the NPC would do in that situation.

I feel we are going in circles. You already agreed earlier that the NPC personality modelling cannot give comprehensive answers. So this was about a situation where you have already considered the personality of the NPC and feel it could go either way. Of course no one is advocating NPCs acting against their personality, that's not what happens in a good story.

Now, I suppose what you're trying to say is that by having him flee, I'm still curating the story as a GM, but that's not really the case. Yes, my decision is certainly influencing the way play will go, but my decision was not made in order to make it go in that direction. I'm not choosing something based on what will be the best story.

I think the distinction is a bit subtle, but I do think it is there.

Yes, you're curating the story. If you're creating the NPC personality on the spot, then your decision to make them a coward is decision about the direction of the story. You're just prioritising your vision of the NPCs personality over a climatic confrontation. Both are perfectly valid, and both are about the direction of the story.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if a player makes a Lore move about a present situation they're in and a success says (tell them something both interesting and useful) and a success with complication says (tell them something interesting, its on them to make it useful), the GM's movespace is very contracted (particularly in concert with the rest of the game). If the GM responds with something interesting but not useful (meaning the players can't put it into action right now), they'll call him on it. But again, why the hell would they do that if (a) telling them something interesting and useful makes play fulfilling/works?

I focus on this bit because I think it makes a great example. Even about specific topic there could be million different things one could find interesting and useful, especially if the context is something that involves a lot of things that were improvised on the spot. This will colossally be influenced by what the GM thinks is 'cool story element' and whatever 'interesting and useful' the GM makes up will greatly influence the direction of the 'story.'

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Looking at the kobold example, the players declared an action to intimidate the kobold in order to get the kobold to divulge information about the rest of the dungeon. You've argued that, fine, the kobold does this, but can do it in a number of ways, some of which include alerting the next nearby encounter. You've further argued that there's no real difference between options in the sense that all of them are the GM intentionally directing the story.

Yes.

However, I submit that alerting the next encounter is a clearly undesired outcome for the players.

Yeah, probably.

Had they known that successfully intimidating the kobold would result in alerting the next encounter, they likely would not have chosen that path, as their goal is to gain information, not start the next encounter without that information.

Then perhaps they should have then knocked the kobold unconscious and drag it to a safe location to be interrogated instead of scaring the poor sod while there are more monsters in the next room? Success (at least in D&D) doesn't involve immunity to possible negative consequences that could logically follow.

And, so, ANY choice by the GM that includes alerting the next encounter is, in fact, narrating a failure state to the players' intentions with their action. You've chosen to not honor their success, but instead find a way to ignore it and continue with the next encounter. Thus, there's an easy metric by which to determine what the kobold does -- don't thwart the players' success.

They did not try to avoid next encounter, they tried to intimidate kobold. These are completely different things.

After that, if we're talking about if the kobold whines, or pledges loyalty, or whatever, so long as these all honor the players' intent and success, there's little real difference. You haven't chosen the outcome based on the best story because the outcome was chosen because it honors the players' intent and success at that intent. The rest is flavor, not story curation.

That is just one direction the story can take, not automatically any more neutral than the kobold panicking.

Now, if you use this as an opportunity to have the kobold pledge loyalty so the kobold can join the party and then betray them later, you're back to story curation -- you're choosing the outcome based on a story outcome rather than the result of adjudicating the players' intent and success.

That again would be a perfectly logical possibility. They succeeded intimidating the kobold, which will mean it is scared and will do what the characters demand at the moment. This (in D&D) doesn't involve 'mind control into perpetuity.' In fact, it is perfectly logical that a creature who is coerced to do something would flee or betray the characters given opportunity to do so safely.

This really isn't that complicated a concept.

Sure, it isn't. The only complication is you trying to invent artificial distinctions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Crimson, you know those stories about the DM twisting wishes for no reason no matter how air tight the wording? That's what this is.

"Lol, you just sought to intimidate the kobold, not to avoid the encounter even though that's expressly what you said you were intimidating them for. Enjoy your punishment for trying something asymmetrical!"

I get that some portray 'Skilled Play' as a roguelike simulator where you suffer until you figure out how to anticipate the DM's whims, but maybe tell them that's what they're in for instead of pretending you're going to play fair.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Crimson, you know those stories about the DM twisting wishes for no reason no matter how air tight the wording? That's what this is.

"Lol, you just sought to intimidate the kobold, not to avoid the encounter even though that's expressly what you said you were intimidating them for. Enjoy your punishment for trying something asymmetrical!"

I get that some portray 'Skilled Play' as a roguelike simulator where you suffer until you figure out how to anticipate the DM's whims, but maybe tell them that's what they're in for instead of pretending you're going to play fair.

This was not my example to begin with and I'm sure different people imagine it in differnt way. But I don't think that it is unreasonable that intimidating a creature might alert creatures in the next room. Hell, depending on the distance, and how good hearing the creatures have the characters just being there might alert them; stealth skill exists for a reason. But it depends on the specifics, the characters certainly could take steps to minimise the risk of such a thing happening, but the example didn't include such. But that's the thing, different people will judge these things differently and it is bizarre to insist that one interpretation is the obviously correct and neutral one and anything else is directing the story. They're just different choices, each of which will direct the story into different direction.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This was not my example to begin with and I'm sure different people imagine it in differnt way. But I don't think that it is unreasonable that intimidating a creature might alert creatures in the next room. Hell, depending on the distance, and how good hearing the creatures have the characters just being there might alert them; stealth skill exists for a reason. But it depends on the specifics, the characters certainly could take steps to minimise the risk of such a thing happening, but the example didn't include such. But that's the thing, different people will judge these things differently and it is bizarre to insist that one interpretation is the obviously correct and neutral one and anything else is directing the story. They're just different choices, each of which will direct the story into different direction.

But it is pretty clear that your version is looking for half an excuse to plant your foot in some PC booty.

And that is a version of skilled play: the Adversarial DM. It's just one I hate. Lots.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But it is pretty clear that your version is looking for half an excuse to plant your foot in some PC booty.

I don't think so. Are the creatures in the next room deaf or something? What if the characters decide that they break a door to the third room to avoid going trough the room containing the monsters. If they succeed at the athletics test to break the door does it mean that the monsters cannot be alerted by the noise, because the characters' intent was to avoid them and they succeeded in the skill check?

And that is a version of skilled play: the Adversarial DM. It's just one I hate. Lots.

Yes, sure. Me too.

 

[Campbell]

Most of us will have the impulse to push play in this direction or that direction from time to time, but it does not follow that we should lean into that urge. Inability to do something perfectly does not mean there is no value in its pursuit.

I have personally found immense value in play techniques (on both sides of the screen) which seek to minimize curation. I often find an experience where we are not concerned with the end result freeing. The discipline involved comes with its own rewards.

Much of the commentary seems entirely too concerned with outcomes. RPGs are not just the resulting narrative. The journey often matters more than the destination.

 

[Manbearcat]

I focus on this bit because I think it makes a great example. Even about specific topic there could be million different things one could find interesting and useful, especially if the context is something that involves a lot of things that were improvised on the spot. This will colossally be influenced by what the GM thinks is 'cool story element' and whatever 'interesting and useful' the GM makes up will greatly influence the direction of the 'story.'

1) Of course the GM is going to influence the the direction of play. It’s not only impossible for that NOT to happen, it’s undesirable.

Influencing play and curating outcomes to achieve story outcome x are not remotely the same thing. Your reducing the space between the two to nothing. There is a giant, gaping chasm between the two and there is architecture that ensures the space between the two sides.

2) There are not a million different responses to a question like:

“I believe I’ve heard in my studies that there is an ancient dwarven forge around here.”

And there certainly aren’t a million answers that are interesting. And there certainly aren't a million ways that are both interesting and useful. And there certainly aren't a millions ways that are all 3 of interesting, useful, and thematically relevant to the characters. And there certainly aren't a million ways that are all 4 of interesting, useful, thematically relevant to the characters, and following the GM's principles and rules of the game!

And better still, if the player in question feels that it isn't interesting or useful, they have recourse!

"That isn't useful...I don't see how to use that in the situation."

or

"That isn't particularly interesting or relevant?"

To which the GM can then say..."ok what about y or z...are either of those two things interesting?"

To which the player can then say..."I like z...that is very interesting and relates to thing n about my character. But it doesn't appear particularly useful..."

To which the GM can then say..."ok what if these other things a and b are also true...you should be able to use those."

To which the player can then say "yeah, I can definitely use b. Alright so here is what I think we're doing guys."

Play ensues.

3) Your interpretation of the kobold situation is 100 % the sort of adversarial GMing that isn't honoring the player's decision-point + action resolution loop. If they got an outright success, to create that sort of complication is a move that is absolutely hostile to a faithful rendering of play...and absolutely hostile to Skilled Play priorities.

Now, consider an alternative:

If they got a Success With Complications on their move and you did what you did (gave them what they want and attracted unwanted attention in the process), THAT is the appropriate move to make. If you ignore that complication, THAT would be a hostile move by the GM (and a violation of Skilled Play priorities).

Finally, if they got an outright Success on their move and you (a) don't give them what they want (actionable intelligence on the dungeon) and (b) ALSO give them the complication you're envisioning...

...well, that is such a profound Calvinballing of play that you'd be lucky to not endure a complete walk-out on the spot.