Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Allow the Long Rest Recharge to Honor Skilled Play or Disallow it to Ensure a Memorable Story
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8284052" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think there are some - even many - posters who seem to be <em>asserting </em>that skilled play should be allowed to run its course. Of those, many then go on to give advice which is, in effect, that the GM engage in story curation. Here's an example:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>***********************************************</p><p></p><p>I think "story curation" comes in different degrees. The story curation of (say) DL, or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, is quite extreme: in effect the whole sequence of events of play is laid out in advance. I personally do not really enjoy that sort of RPGing. But I think it must be quite popular given that WotC continues to sell variants on it via its APs.</p><p></p><p>But there is a more limited form of "story curation" or "story imperative" which is relevant to the OP. For instance, in 4e D&D there is no rule (and at least as the books present themselves, not even an express or implicit principle) that precludes the GM having full regard to the current state of the PCs (eg what resources do they have available?) in framing a situation. The GM can step things up (raise a creature/NPC in level; add more elements into the encounter) or step things down as s/he thinks is appropriate. This is something I did frequently in GMing 4e.</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel has some points of resemblance but also some points of difference. The points of resemblance are (i) that the GM has (by far) the strongest authority over the framing of scenes/situations, and (ii) the GM is therefore able to do so having regard to the current state of the PCs (and the Adventure Burner/Codex, in its GMing advice, talks about how the GM can manage framing in order to maintain an appropriate degree of challenge). But here's a point of difference: far more than 4e D&D, Burning Wheel has an "objective" component to how difficult certain challenges should be, how powerful certain beings should be, etc. (This is part of why 4e tends towards gonzo whereas BW tnds towards grounded or even gritty.) This "objectivity" puts some limits on how much the GM can adjust the fiction to make it meet story imperatives. But there are other techniques that are central to BW (eg "fail forward" adjudication of resolution outcomes; benefits to PC improvement that can flow from having one's PC attempt tasks while at less than full strength; the focus on player-authored PC Beliefs as the starting point for all scene framing; no expectation of "neutral" refereeing by the GM) that help ensure that the possibility [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] identifies (of "just playing the game" leaving "story juice" unused) is unlikely to come to pass.</p><p></p><p>These features of 4e and of BW make me say that, as systems, they prioritise story imperatives over "skilled play", at least as far as resting/resource recovery is concerned. <em>Skilled play</em> is, however, an imperative <em>within </em>scenes/situations. 4e to an extent and BW very strongly have no room for anyone, during the resolution of a scene/situation, to substitute story imperatives for <em>playing the game in accordance with the rules for action declaration and resolution</em>.</p><p></p><p>Suppose you move away from 4e/BW-ish play, in the direction of classic D&D - eg more "neutral"/"naturalistic" approaches to the elements of framing and to locating the PCs in the world and relative to the obstacles they will face; more emphasis on extrapolation of the fiction to move from situation to situation rather than a strong sense of "scenes" that the GM frames; more game elements that care about the ways in which the PCs move from scene to scene (eg spell durations; recovery cycles); a greater expectation that the GM will draw extensively on unrevealed elements of the fiction to not only feed into framing but to determine the resolution of declared actions; etc. Then I think it becomes less likely that "just playing the game" will produce a satisfying story, because all those changes (i) encourage players to try and take control of scene framing, and the players' have "skilled play" incentives in that respect (eg to go into every encounter at full strength) and (ii) make certain sorts of minutiae (eg how many rations do we have left?) important to play even though they are pretty immaterial to a lot of satisfying stories. This is what produces the tension the OP is pointing to, and that [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] has reiterated in the quote above.</p><p></p><p>And then what I'm seeing, as in the other quotes above, is that we preserve story imperatives not by changing some basic techniques - eg like who gets to frame scenes; who gets to manage resource recovery; etc - all of which involve abandoning "naturalism; but rather by doubling down on the GM's authority over unrevealed backstory. In the context of the OP I think that is absolutely what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] would consider a strong favouring of storytelling over skilled play priorities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8284052, member: 42582"] I think there are some - even many - posters who seem to be [I]asserting [/I]that skilled play should be allowed to run its course. Of those, many then go on to give advice which is, in effect, that the GM engage in story curation. Here's an example: *********************************************** I think "story curation" comes in different degrees. The story curation of (say) DL, or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, is quite extreme: in effect the whole sequence of events of play is laid out in advance. I personally do not really enjoy that sort of RPGing. But I think it must be quite popular given that WotC continues to sell variants on it via its APs. But there is a more limited form of "story curation" or "story imperative" which is relevant to the OP. For instance, in 4e D&D there is no rule (and at least as the books present themselves, not even an express or implicit principle) that precludes the GM having full regard to the current state of the PCs (eg what resources do they have available?) in framing a situation. The GM can step things up (raise a creature/NPC in level; add more elements into the encounter) or step things down as s/he thinks is appropriate. This is something I did frequently in GMing 4e. Burning Wheel has some points of resemblance but also some points of difference. The points of resemblance are (i) that the GM has (by far) the strongest authority over the framing of scenes/situations, and (ii) the GM is therefore able to do so having regard to the current state of the PCs (and the Adventure Burner/Codex, in its GMing advice, talks about how the GM can manage framing in order to maintain an appropriate degree of challenge). But here's a point of difference: far more than 4e D&D, Burning Wheel has an "objective" component to how difficult certain challenges should be, how powerful certain beings should be, etc. (This is part of why 4e tends towards gonzo whereas BW tnds towards grounded or even gritty.) This "objectivity" puts some limits on how much the GM can adjust the fiction to make it meet story imperatives. But there are other techniques that are central to BW (eg "fail forward" adjudication of resolution outcomes; benefits to PC improvement that can flow from having one's PC attempt tasks while at less than full strength; the focus on player-authored PC Beliefs as the starting point for all scene framing; no expectation of "neutral" refereeing by the GM) that help ensure that the possibility [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] identifies (of "just playing the game" leaving "story juice" unused) is unlikely to come to pass. These features of 4e and of BW make me say that, as systems, they prioritise story imperatives over "skilled play", at least as far as resting/resource recovery is concerned. [I]Skilled play[/I] is, however, an imperative [I]within [/I]scenes/situations. 4e to an extent and BW very strongly have no room for anyone, during the resolution of a scene/situation, to substitute story imperatives for [I]playing the game in accordance with the rules for action declaration and resolution[/I]. Suppose you move away from 4e/BW-ish play, in the direction of classic D&D - eg more "neutral"/"naturalistic" approaches to the elements of framing and to locating the PCs in the world and relative to the obstacles they will face; more emphasis on extrapolation of the fiction to move from situation to situation rather than a strong sense of "scenes" that the GM frames; more game elements that care about the ways in which the PCs move from scene to scene (eg spell durations; recovery cycles); a greater expectation that the GM will draw extensively on unrevealed elements of the fiction to not only feed into framing but to determine the resolution of declared actions; etc. Then I think it becomes less likely that "just playing the game" will produce a satisfying story, because all those changes (i) encourage players to try and take control of scene framing, and the players' have "skilled play" incentives in that respect (eg to go into every encounter at full strength) and (ii) make certain sorts of minutiae (eg how many rations do we have left?) important to play even though they are pretty immaterial to a lot of satisfying stories. This is what produces the tension the OP is pointing to, and that [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] has reiterated in the quote above. And then what I'm seeing, as in the other quotes above, is that we preserve story imperatives not by changing some basic techniques - eg like who gets to frame scenes; who gets to manage resource recovery; etc - all of which involve abandoning "naturalism; but rather by doubling down on the GM's authority over unrevealed backstory. In the context of the OP I think that is absolutely what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] would consider a strong favouring of storytelling over skilled play priorities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Allow the Long Rest Recharge to Honor Skilled Play or Disallow it to Ensure a Memorable Story
Top