D&D General Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better

[Reynard]

Generally agree as long as the DM is reasonably trying to balance calling for automatic success/failure and calling for checks. The smart play on the player's side is to avoid the d20 as much as possible because given half the chance it will kill you and everyone you've ever loved. If they can, the DM should let them proceed without a roll.

Fully agree on randomizing more things in the DM space. Give me more tables and whatnot for encounters, reactions, weather, the works. That's way more engaging as a DM to me than canned prep as I have to put on my thinking cap to figure out how it fits the immediate situation. This sort of improvisation results in outcomes I probably couldn't have prepared for.

Yeah. Random outcomes should be interesting, not just deadly.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the only kind of PC balance that matters in lateral (ie between PCs) and random stats etc exacerbate balance problems of that sort.

Where within reason this isn't a problem for me. People aren't "balanced" in real life, reflecting that in the game is fine with me.

I've also found that starting stats aren't much of a predictor of a character's lifespan and-or success; though that's from a 1e perspective. In 5e where stats mean more, I can see a need for a bit more balance (but I still want some randomness).

 

[overgeeked]

Specifically, uncertainty in potential results. Swinginess. Random happenings because the dice get a mind of their own. That sort of thing.

I have played and like some "story" games, but one thing many of them lack is uncertainty. Their mechanics tend to favor participants being able to say things that become true in the fiction (even if they don't call it that).

I prefer when participants in D&D (and similar "trad" games) say what they would like to be the case, and then the dice decide how that turns out. That goes for the GM, too, btw -- the GM being subject to the same uncertainty is equally important in creating a truly surprising and novel experience...

...and GMs should be able to build the initial conditions of play (the "situations") with as much or as little random information as they desire. But once play starts, I say roll those bones in the open and stick by what they say, whether it's a random encounter with an ancient wyrm (don't forget to roll reaction!) or the BBEG gets one shotted by the torch bearer.

Absolutely.

I think players should get to design their characters without having to deal with dice

Nah. I'm with Lanefan on this one. Having random stats teaches the players at the table to deal with situations they otherwise wouldn't. Which is a big part of the fun. Giving up that sense of control. It's all about the dice. It's a gamble. You only get so much input then you roll the dice.

People in life aren't balanced. Despite what we want to be, we start with a specific genetic makeup that we can't really change. You may want to be an NBA star, but if you're 5'2"...it's not likely. You may want to be a singer, but if you're tone deaf...it's not likely.

 

[The Sigil]

One of the things that bothers me when I hear "swingy" discussed around D&D is that I don't think when you actually look at where the math goes, it's quite as "swingy" as those throwing the term around want you to think.

I have heard, for example, that "rolling a d20" is "incredibly swingy" because you have one result that is 20 times "better" than another result (rolling a 20 vs rolling a 1). But in general, when you're rolling a d20 (even d20+X) there are usually only four outcomes:

1. Critical Failure (in 5e, this is rolling a natural 1; in Pathfinder, this is "rolling 10 less than the target number")
2. Normal Failure (in 5e, this is rolling something less than the target number that is not a natural 1; in Pathfinder, this is rolling between 1 and 9 less than the target number)
3. Normal Success (in 5e, this is rolling a least the target number but not a natural 20; in Pathfinder, this is rolling between the target number and the target number plus 9)
4. Critical Success (in 5e, this is a natural 20; in Pathfinder, this is rolling at least 10 greater than the target number - and in some cases for various editions of D&D this could encompass additional numbers - e.g., 19-20 got you crits for an axe in 3e).

Usually these spreads look something like 5% vs 40% vs 55% vs 5% in 5e, though if you're fighting something with a higher armor class, this might adjust the other way. But in general, the outcome isn't 20 times better, it's really a "hit or miss" and things aren't really very "swingy" since the probabilities wind up being approximately equal (or, for "because it isn't fun to miss" usually stilted a bit towards "hit").

Damage dice is where things are swingier; however, damage dice are frequently smaller than a d20 and paired with a bonus; for example, a weapon that deals 1d8+3 (thanks to a high strength score) has a range of between 4-11; while rolling an "8" on the base die is less than three times as "good" as rolling a "1." As the +X goes up, the swinginess diminishes. Similarly, as the number of dice goes up, the swinginess diminishes (as you go from a linear distribution of outcomes to a bell curve; getting a "2" vs a "16" on 2d8 is possible, but those are statistical outliers - most of the time you'll be getting a result of 7-11, which does have some swing to it but is far less extreme).

Again, the swing is noticeable at low levels where hit points and bonuses are small so one high damage roll might be able to take a character out of commission in one shot and it happens frequently enough to be noticeable (say, 1 in 8), but quickly becomes less as characters reach 3rd-5th level where it's going to take a lot of dice all coming up high at the same time to take a character out in one shot (say, the odds of hitting 24 damage on 3d8 damage dice is 1 in 256) and is extraordinarily unlikely at high levels of play.

This is not to say I'm not interested in how other systems might do innovative things with dice (e.g., Force dice in Star Wars) but I'm a little wary of claims that "D&D's design sucks because it's swingy" - it's not as swingy as you might think.

And yes, I'm all for letting the DM letting the dice fall where they may... with the caveat that if a DM drops in an encounter and realizes within a round or two it's clear this is going to wreck the PCs because the DM overtuned the encounter (e.g., even a "below average" hit from the baddie one-shots the toughest PC when the intent was a challenge that would tax them but not kill them), I have no problem with the DM dialing things back a bit on the fly; however, if things go poorly because the PCs have a string of bad die rolls or the DM rolls three natural 20's in a row for the monster... well, tough. Them's the breaks. Some uncertainty ("swinginess") is good. It also allows PCs to pull of surprise stunts that totally throw off the DM's plot but that the DM should also be fully prepared to accept and roll with (obligatory Critical Role/Dust of Deliciousness nod).

 

[Steampunkette]

So... my position is this:

Randomness is good for a game and a story... within reason.

Some stuff -should- be foregone conclusions. If 3 level 3 fighters are teaming up to beat up 1 basic goblin armed with only a dead rat and an unearned level of self confidence no amount of randomness should wind up in a TPK.

There's a time for randomness and there's also a time for "Yeah, you take a couple minutes searching the inn room and find X, Y, and Z."

And that's where passive checks keep characters from feeling utterly incompetent for no reason other than "d20 says so"

 

[The Sigil]

Randomness is good for a game and a story... within reason.

Some stuff -should- be foregone conclusions. (snip) And that's where passive checks keep characters from feeling utterly incompetent for no reason other than "d20 says so"

The bit about foregone conclusions and passive checks is really good advice.

Without randomness, the players have no real agency - they were always destined to succeed or fail. Randomness is for drama when there are stakes involved and success or failure SHOULD be up in the air.

When you're trying to solve the timed death trap or you're fighting the Big Bad or trying to talk your way out of arrest after accidentally smashing through a merchant's shop in a drunken brawl? That's when you need randomness to determine whether you succeed or fail (and your items, skills, preparation, role-play, or whatever else can earn you some modifiers or advantage to put the thumb on the scales one way or the other) but with no randomness, there's no stakes. And with no stakes, there's no satisfaction.

But it's not there for mundane tasks with no stakes.

 

[DMZ2112]

Specifically, uncertainty in potential results. Swinginess. Random happenings because the dice get a mind of their own. That sort of thing.

I agree with this sentiment except that 'swinginess' doesn't belong. Randomizing against a probability curve is interesting. A system where the spread on the RNG has more weight than player choice calls the whole enterprise of "roleplaying" into question.

The rules have to have meaning, and the results of actions should be unknown, but random chance has to be mitigated with a good curve, or at least balanced against strategy and tactics.

But once play starts, I say roll those bones in the open and stick by what they say, whether it's a random encounter with an ancient wyrm (don't forget to roll reaction!) or the BBEG gets one shotted by the torch bearer.

Suit yourself, but for my part, I know my table better than any designer and much better than any set of bubble-filled plastic shapes manufactured by the lowest bidder, so I run my games -- they don't.

If you want a cooperative fantasy adventure game without a dungeon master, I recommend Roll Player Adventures. Good stuff.

I think the only kind of PC balance that matters in lateral (ie between PCs) and random stats etc exacerbate balance problems of that sort.

What matters is holding all players to the same standard. If you're rolling, everyone rolls the same way. If you're using point buy, everyone uses the same points and schedule.

Still, at least when it comes to D&D, random ability scores were intended for a version of the game that no longer exists, and ignoring the fact that the rest of the rules that made random ability scores valuable have been gone for 20 years doesn't improve D&D5 in any measurable way.

But why change just because it's been 40 years, the norms of play are different, the game has been revised four times, the relevance of the actual ability score itself is largely deprecated, and even the core mechanic functions in a wholly different way.

Usually these spreads look something like 5% vs 40% vs 55% vs 5% in 5e, though if you're fighting something with a higher armor class, this might adjust the other way. But in general, the outcome isn't 20 times better, it's really a "hit or miss" and things aren't really very "swingy" since the probabilities wind up being approximately equal (or, for "because it isn't fun to miss" usually stilted a bit towards "hit").

That's incredibly swingy. Your argument is that we might as well be flipping a coin because the result is binary, which is the definition of swing in a game sense -- the RNG greatly outweighs player influence. No one that I'm aware of is arguing that D&D is swingy in the traditional statistical sense, where extreme results disproportionately impact outcomes.

I'll grant you that perhaps we should be using a different word, but this is a semantic argument.

 

[The Sigil]

Still, at least when it comes to D&D, random ability scores were intended for a version of the game that no longer exists, and ignoring the fact that the rest of the rules that made random ability scores valuable have been gone for 20 years doesn't improve D&D5 in any measurable way.

That is an interesting point, and one of the things that kind of surprised me about Pathfinder 2E was that there were no random ability scores at all - it's completely "build your character from this menu."

But now that you mention it, I think you're right... I can't think of a campaign in the past 20 years that I've played where the younger players didn't want to use "standard array, let me build the character I already have in my head" versus the old way of "roll the dice and go on the journey of discovering your character through the die rolls" (when I suggest that the young'uns look at me funny). I still like the look of ability score values between 3 and 18 but you're right - since 3rd edition when bonuses were set to go up every even integer and all increases to stats are in increments of +2 (so the bonus increments in +1), everything has been all about the bonus. (Intellectually, I knew this, but it hit me emotionally a couple of weeks ago and I wasn't happy.)

 

[Steampunkette]

The bit about foregone conclusions and passive checks is really good advice.

Without randomness, the players have no real agency - they were always destined to succeed or fail. Randomness is for drama when there are stakes involved and success or failure SHOULD be up in the air.

When you're trying to solve the timed death trap or you're fighting the Big Bad or trying to talk your way out of arrest after accidentally smashing through a merchant's shop in a drunken brawl? That's when you need randomness to determine whether you succeed or fail (and your items, skills, preparation, role-play, or whatever else can earn you some modifiers or advantage to put the thumb on the scales one way or the other) but with no randomness, there's no stakes. And with no stakes, there's no satisfaction.

But it's not there for mundane tasks with no stakes.

EXACTLY.

I will never roll a nat 1 while making a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich and accidentally stab myself through the neck with a silicon spreader because I "Missed the peanut butter jar".

But I would have a decent chance of rolling a nat 1 on "Dodging Oncoming Traffic".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Could you define "when it actually matters" please? I don't want to respond when I don't know exactly what you are saying.

So picture this:

A situation comes up in game that's not so much something that will result in success or failure as something cool happening. Everyone knows it. Everyone involved rolls their check to make it happen... but the dice decide to be cold at that moment and even the person who built their character sucks and fails at it because the d20 matters more than in-universe skill and the will of every single person at the table.

The disappointment is palpable, hanging over the table like a wet blanket and you've still got an hour left to play while everyone is in a downer mood because of the dice.

But oh wait, I use action points! And the competent character just happens to have an ability that turns a natural 1 into a 20 once an encounter. The dice are slain, the beat comes back and everyone is satisfied.