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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

What I have issue is the idea that there is some obvious and natural direction in which things go without DM input. There often isn't. If there was, you would not need the DM to be there to begin with.

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.

I like that there isn't predetermined outcome. Like I said earlier, that's kinda the point of RPGs as a medium. But this is not the same as the DM not curating the story at all. Like I also said earlier, it's like Once Upon a Time card game (in which you draw random story element cards and craft a story about them,) the player actions, the rules, the dice and the background produce a glorious mess of different elements and the GM helps to weave a satisfying story out of them.

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.

Sure.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yes, we are going in circles. Because whether it can go more than one way isn't the point. It's that the GM's decision making is not about achieving a specific outcome.

If the GM felt that the NPC would flee.....but thought an exciting battle would be more memorable, and so he has the NPC decide "Enough running....all my plans have lead to this moment! I'll crush these interlopers!" and shifts what the NPC would do based on having an exciting battle.....then that would be curation as it's being used in this discussion.

NPC flee- decision based on NPC motives and traits
NPC stay and fight- decision based on having an exciting battle for the game, with NPC's motives shifted to suit

It's not the result of the decision that we're talking about, it's how or why the decision is made.

Of course no one is advocating NPCs acting against their personality, that's not what happens in a good story.

Meh, this is so hard to judge. People change their thinking all the time, in real life and in stories.

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.

I specifically said based on what had been established. Fidelity to what we already know of the NPC. Not something created on the spot.

But really, either way, there is a distinction, and you're not seeing it, so I don't know what else to say. As you said, we're talking in circles.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Well, we agree on that. Some people seemed to argue against it though.

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.

There is small murky puddle between them at most. And no one was talking about specific outcome X, that would (or at least could) be railroading. The GM could have several preferred outcomes.

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!

I mean ask different GMs to come up with an 'interesting and useful' thing for given fictional situation. Do you think they will all give the same answer? You will get a bunch of differnt ones, though of course some will be similarish.

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.

At this point it is probably easier to just let the player to invent the thing to begin with...

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.

This is D&D section of the forum. In D&D a skill check generally resolves one specific action in relatively simulationish manner. It doesn't grant overall authorial control of the situation. If you intimidate a kobold to divulge the information, they will do that (if they have that information, which is not given!) A successful intimidation check doesn't automatically ensure that the process cannot be heard. Now it could of course do that in certain circumstances, if that that is included in the intimidation process. "Make a sound and you're dead!" Example didn't include such though. Like I said in my response to Vaalingrade: 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?

Also, this was not my example to begin with, and I am not saying that I would run it in manner that would result the monsters in the next room being alerted. I tend to be rather lenient with these sort of things. But it is perfectly valid way to run it, and not inherently any more 'directing the story' than the other option.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because whether it can go more than one way isn't the point.

But if we are in situation it could go either way based on NPCs motives and traits...

If the GM felt that the NPC would flee.....

Then why does the GM feel they would flee? It cannot be because NPCs motives and traits because you already agreed that it could either way by those...

 

[clearstream]

1) This is in the text by me you just quoted:

"Boardgaming" is necessary but not sufficient (because it doesn't include the "shared imagined space" component that is part and parcel of Skilled Play in TTRPGing).

Ah. I was supposing you separated the imaginary component out into SI. Do you mean by "shared imagined space" the ability by each player to have in mind aspects of the game state? If so - for me at least - "boardgame" will do. Does it matter if that boardgame is physical or imagined? Is there a difference there that you want to count on?

For reference

D&D requires a shared imagined spaced. If dungeons were boardgames, there wouldn't be a PC role of mapper.

Doesn't matter: the map is the space.

4e Skill Challenges can't be played on a board.

They can be codified onto a board - it just wouldn't be worth the effort.

Perilous journeys and climbs up savage mountain faces, Indiana Jones esque chases from collapsing temples, parleys with the king's chamberlain for audience with the king (and on and on and on) are all played in the shared imagined space. Players are leveraging fictional framing in making action declarations. Players are trying to wrest control (from either the GM or another player) of that fictional framing so that they can "open up the move-space" for their character.

I thought about this expansiveness point, but in the end whatever expanse might be implied in the mind, what is played is far less. It seems here that if opening up move space is spontaneous and not definable by rules then SP is fusing into SI. Or it is algorithmic, in which case the fact that we haven't put in the effort in to generate it might not really matter to the argument (as we could do so).

In boardgames, as much as in RPG, we imagine more than there is. Say in Dune, we imagine we are directing house forces wrestling for control of spice. We are doing no such thing, of course. Is it that sort of imagination you mean? How is it relevant to SP in a way that preserves differences between SP and SI?

What work is imagined doing for SP?

 

[hawkeyefan]

But if we are in situation it could go either way based on NPCs motives and traits...


Then why does the GM feel they would flee? It cannot be because NPCs motives and traits because you already agreed that it could either way by those...

The sarcasm isn’t really helping. I’m engaging politely and assuming good faith on your part. I’ll kindly ask you to return that courtesy.

In the example I sketched, the GM may consider fleeing to be the NPC’s response. The input into this decision is simply what has been established about that NPC, and the GM playing that honestly.

There is no other motive.

If the GM instead shifts the NPC’s thinking in order to have a fight, he is doing so for the benefit of the game or the story. That is curating of the kind that is being discussed. The decision is made not out of a sense of fidelity to what’s been established about the NPC. The decision is being made because “it’d be cool for the showdown with this NPC to happen now.”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The sarcasm isn’t really helping. I’m engaging politely and assuming good faith on your part. I’ll kindly ask you to return that courtesy.

In the example I sketched, the GM may consider fleeing to be the NPC’s response. The input into this decision is simply what has been established about that NPC, and the GM playing that honestly.

There is no other motive.

If the GM instead shifts the NPC’s thinking in order to have a fight, he is doing so for the benefit of the game or the story. That is curating of the kind that is being discussed. The decision is made not out of a sense of fidelity to what’s been established about the NPC. The decision is being made because “it’d be cool for the showdown with this NPC to happen now.”

It was not sarcasm, I was just not getting it. And I still don't.

Sure. But are you claiming that at any given moment any NPC can only have only one possible logically coherent reaction? I tend to think about the motivations and psychology of my NPCs quite a lot and and I wouldn't dare to claim that. And especially if the NPC is just some random bloke who was introduced five minutes earlier.

No, I'm not saying that.

If you agree that the 'psychological profile' of the NPC could potentially equally plausibly result either choice, then the fidelity to the 'psychological profile' of the NPC cannot be the motive for deciding to go one way instead of another! I don't know how I can explain this better!

 

[hawkeyefan]

It was not sarcasm, I was just not getting it. And I still don't.





If you agree that the 'psychological profile' of the NPC could potentially equally plausibly result either choice, then the fidelity to the 'psychological profile' of the NPC cannot be the motive for deciding to go one way instead of another! I don't know how I can explain this better!

Forget what the actual choice is.

Why is it chosen? That’s the important factor.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Forget what the actual choice is.

Why is it chosen? That’s the important factor.

That I have asked you for several posts!

Like if you have already considered other factors, and possibilities A, B and C are equally plausible and fit the pre-established facts equally well, how do you determine which you choose? If we discount aesthetic things like 'this makes cool story', what else is there? This is not a weird situation, as GM you need to do this all the time. I don't want to use any examples, because then we again get to stuck to arguing specifics about kobolds and whatnot for several pages.

 

[Campbell]

It's for different reasons, but in both OSR play and more character focused play I'm a firm believer in what Blades in the Dark calls being a curious explorer of the fiction. As a GM that means your job is to advocate on behalf of the NPCs and the rest of the fiction. When you do not have answer really think on what is true. Not what is plausible, but what feels real like in your bones. During a conversation the focus should be on embodying that NPC. Only author what needs to be authored. It's a refuge of last resort.

There is really nothing neutral or dispassionate about being a curious explorer of the fiction. You're chasing after the fiction like a dog to the bone. Like any RPG you are making creative decisions, rulings, and about 1,000,000 judgement calls every session, but what makes for a better story is just not part of the calculus.