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

[clearstream]

The skill of skilled play is mostly being able to reason about the fiction and make lateral moves based on what you have learned about the fiction.

In other threads, there has been raised a concern about the theory one can reason about fiction. That it can turn out to be about second-guessing the DM. This touches on a concern that fiction in general cannot be reasoned about. Consider the incomplete sentence -

"That's someone from the office," he said to himself, and..."

We can't reason about what should happen next, because anything can happen. This particular quote is from a famous example of that. Or maybe to put it a better way, we can only reason about what happens next if we know and accept the framing. And even then, imaginary space is so vast that there may never be only one reasonable outcome.

I know this same question has been asked in a lot of different ways: how does SP address that concern? Does it come down to good faith by the participants? When there is disagreement, is the only resolution a parting of ways? (Seeing as neither can claim the - non-existent - fictional high-ground.) And then if it relies on good faith, is the crucial skill that of managing interpersonal relations?

 

[Manbearcat]

What work is imagined doing for SP?

You'll remember this post from me upthread:

AD&D: Optimizing rote dungeon crawl SOPs for dealing with traps + optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies").

Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawls: Managing the Exploration Turn/Rest/Light economy + skillful Exploration turns and (basically) Group Checks
+ avoiding needless combats + maximizing the encumbrance/equipment loadout/treasure weight ratio minigame.

RC Hexcrawls: Optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies") + skillful Exploration turns and (basically) Group Checks.

3.x: Class and build choice minigame (pick Druids, Wizards, Clerics) + optimizing recon/surveillance for optimizing spellcaster loadout and refresh for everything else (obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, sustain "heavies", sustain yourself, buff everyone to the teeth).

4e: Optimize Team PC synergy in combat while optimizing movement/forced movement/control/hazard and terrain interactions to shut down the pivotal components of Team Monster/battlefield synergy + Off-turn actions + Skill Challenge creativity in action declarations and Skill Power/Utility deployment.

5e: Optimizing spell loadout/deployments (to obviate obstacles, render combat rounds after rd 1 moot, synergize skill augments, trigger/protect Long Rest) + Range combat and Bonus Actions + Getting your GM to "say yes" as much as possible + play the "Wheel of Fortune" Social Conflict well.

Pick 3 things on here that are not Combat (D&D combat is overwhelmingly, but not fully, played as boardgame would be with a battlemap, grid, and tokens). That will anchor our conversation in something tangible. I'll explain what work "shared imagined space" is doing in each case.

 

[pemerton]

In other threads, there has been raised a concern about the theory one can reason about fiction. That it can turn out to be about second-guessing the DM. This touches on a concern that fiction in general cannot be reasoned about.

<snip>

we can only reason about what happens next if we know and accept the framing. And even then, imaginary space is so vast that there may never be only one reasonable outcome.

I know this same question has been asked in a lot of different ways: how does SP address that concern?

I made multiple posts about this in the "skilled thread" play. The way that D&D handles them is through the many conventions that establish what parts of the fiction are salient and what are not. These conventions arise out of the "ecology" of play at actual tables among actual participants. The fact that these ecologies are local is part of the explanation of why skilled play is hard to generalise by way of a commercial publishing model.

The "fair trap" thread illustrates some of the limitations that can emerge in reasoning about the fiction.

 

[clearstream]

I made multiple posts about this in the "skilled thread" play. The way that D&D handles them is through the many conventions that establish what parts of the fiction are salient and what are not. These conventions arise out of the "ecology" of play at actual tables among actual participants. The fact that these ecologies are local is part of the explanation of why skilled play is hard to generalise by way of a commercial publishing model.

The "fair trap" thread illustrates some of the limitations that can emerge in reasoning about the fiction.

Did you see my previous, responding to your post. Would it be possible to confirm or expand on that received definition of SP?

 

[clearstream]

You'll remember this post from me upthread:



Pick 3 things on here that are not Combat (D&D combat is overwhelmingly, but not fully, played as boardgame would be with a battlemap, grid, and tokens). That will anchor our conversation in something tangible. I'll explain what work "shared imagined space" is doing in each case.

Interesting idea for an approach!

Hexcrawls.
Character generation.
Spell choice/deployment.

 

[clearstream]

I made multiple posts about this in the "skilled thread" play. The way that D&D handles them is through the many conventions that establish what parts of the fiction are salient and what are not. These conventions arise out of the "ecology" of play at actual tables among actual participants. The fact that these ecologies are local is part of the explanation of why skilled play is hard to generalise by way of a commercial publishing model.

The "fair trap" thread illustrates some of the limitations that can emerge in reasoning about the fiction.

As I worked to articulate my questions, I felt I gained more appreciation for your emphasis on framing. In the end though, isn't it true that there is no fact of the matter for what a DM will accept? The "fair trap" thread is a great example, as you say.

I'm also not totally satisfied that I understand what separates engaging with and skipping engagement with the fiction well enough. Take the OP concern for trivialising the fight with the BBEG, which - so far as I understand - is counted an SP move. That seems to be reducing difficulty by enhancing resources using a straight mechanical-move. I suppose one says that hitting instead of missing a creature is not SP, but then what if I hit because I optimised my character? Isn't optimising my character SP? Is optimising some game systems SP, and optimising other game systems not SP. Again, what is the filter that divides the former from the latter?

EDIT the above noted, I feel that unless some concrete definition of SP is committed to, the argument must remain very hard to advance. Hence drawing your attention back to my response on that.

 

[Manbearcat]

Interesting idea for an approach!

Hexcrawls.
Character generation.
Spell choice/deployment.

Can you clarify, please?

* Which part listed under RC Hexcrawls (there are two things listed - Recon/Surveillance for Spell Loadout or Exploration Turn optimization)?

* Character building/advancement in 3.x?

* Spell loadout/deployment in 5e?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did you see my previous, responding to your post. Would it be possible to confirm or expand on that received definition of SP?

This is an odd line of questioning. It's like, when I describe an apple as sweet and tart, nice snap to the bite, and roughly spherical in shape, you ask, "sure, but what about how much oranges it has in it?"

The definitions given to you for SP all reference leveraging the system, ie, the mechanics, of the game. There's no suggestion that mechanics are in or out in this definition, or that you pick and choose which mechanics count. It's if you can leverage the mechanics of the system, alongside resource expenditure, alongside creative thinking that make the definition. There's never been, as far as I know, an argument that any given set of type of mechanic is excluded.

Now, you might have a set of mechanics that do not support skilled play. If a mechanic is "flip a coin for every action the player declares. On heads, what the play wants happens. On tails, the GM says what happens.," and this is it, then it's very hard to leverage this because you cannot influence how it turns out. Play here cannot be skilled because I can't really do anything to affect play. However, the moment you add, "and each player has 3 re-flip tokens per session to spend on a re-flip of the coin, which they can use after seeing the result of the flip," well, now we're in skilled play land, because I have resources and can use them to leverage the mechanics in important to me situations. It's not perfect, but when and how I use my tokens is not germane.

But, at no point, is there a consideration of which mechanics in a system are to be considered for skilled play. It's the system holistically that enables or disables such play.

 

[clearstream]

This is an odd line of questioning. It's like, when I describe an apple as sweet and tart, nice snap to the bite, and roughly spherical in shape, you ask, "sure, but what about how much oranges it has in it?"

The definitions given to you for SP all reference leveraging the system, ie, the mechanics, of the game. There's no suggestion that mechanics are in or out in this definition, or that you pick and choose which mechanics count. It's if you can leverage the mechanics of the system, alongside resource expenditure, alongside creative thinking that make the definition. There's never been, as far as I know, an argument that any given set of type of mechanic is excluded.

Now, you might have a set of mechanics that do not support skilled play. If a mechanic is "flip a coin for every action the player declares. On heads, what the play wants happens. On tails, the GM says what happens.," and this is it, then it's very hard to leverage this because you cannot influence how it turns out. Play here cannot be skilled because I can't really do anything to affect play. However, the moment you add, "and each player has 3 re-flip tokens per session to spend on a re-flip of the coin, which they can use after seeing the result of the flip," well, now we're in skilled play land, because I have resources and can use them to leverage the mechanics in important to me situations. It's not perfect, but when and how I use my tokens is not germane.

But, at no point, is there a consideration of which mechanics in a system are to be considered for skilled play. It's the system holistically that enables or disables such play.

It sounds like you might be rejecting the possibility of a singular definition, only multiple definitions. Is it down to each group?

Might it be right to say something like -

1. SP is SP-mode + SP-boardgame + SP-language

2. In SP-mode, SP-boardgame-moves are resolved mechanically - by the rules - to solve SP-boardgame-problems

3. In SP-mode, SP-language-moves are resolved by the DM to solve SP-language-problems

4. Players shouldn't use SP-boardgame-moves to solve SP-language-problems: that is not playing in SP-mode

5. SP is not all or nothing, a group might be doing somewhat-SP, and can play in SP-mode + other modes, such as SI-mode

Or something else? I think 4. is particularly important. Several times now it has been explained that just rolling dice to achieve something isn't enough. But rolling dice to achieve something is okay given the right preconditions or context. So what are those preconditions? I assume we don't count the player sitting, looking puzzled for a moment, frowning, face lights-up with inspiration - "I'll make a Persuasion check!" - right? We want them to have paid attention and done some kind of work. But what is that kind of work!?

 

[clearstream]

Can you clarify, please?

* Which part listed under RC Hexcrawls (there are two things listed - Recon/Surveillance for Spell Loadout or Exploration Turn optimization)?

* Character building/advancement in 3.x?

* Spell loadout/deployment in 5e?

This starts to feel like a stitch up We are going with what you listed, right, in that earlier post.