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

[MichaelSomething]

So I take you tried the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG? That ups the randomness to 11!

 

[overgeeked]

So I take you tried the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG? That ups the randomness to 11!

Randomness as game balance. It's utterly amazing. Wizards slowly mutating because magic is pure chaos. Such a great game.

 

[Maxperson]

All dice-rolling systems (pretty much) are there to introduce uncertainty. But swingy ones are where wild things easily happen, like the ultra-skilled warrior misses four attacks in a row, which is just not going to happen in something like Shadowrun or Exalted (even w/o powers).

Why not? You don't think another equally ultra-skilled warrior can't block, parry and dodge 4 attacks from your ultra-skilled warrior?

Warrior 1 moves in and thrusts his blade forward to skewer warrior 2 through the neck. Warrior 2 pivots slightly and the thrust passes by his neck harmlessly(miss #1). Seeing this warrior 1 quickly slashes sideways intending to slice warrior 2's neck open only to find warrior 2's shield blocking the slash upward having anticipated this move(miss #2). Warrior 1 quickly pulls his sword back for another thrust while the shield is high, but the shield again finds itself in the sword's path blocking it, causing the sword to skitter off the shield to the right(miss #3). As quick as a blur the sword whistles back under the shield to slash low at warrior 2's legs, only to be parried deftly by warrior 2's axe(miss#4).

Nothing farcical about that at all. It's actually a rather exciting combat. It's actually less realistic(more farcical) for it to be impossible like you say Shadowrun and Exalted do. It sounds like those systems make a high level combat more like DBZ where they just hit each other back and forth until one drops.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think one of us is totally lost(and not sure that it isn't me). I've been understanding @Reynard to be arguing that D&D is more random(swingy) and uncertain than all of the other games on his shelf, and then having others argue that D&D is less random(swingy) and less uncertain than other games.

It's seems, like many other threads, that we are in the territory of arguing semantics as opposed to a concept.

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

This is why I don't agree with the idea put forth by the OP.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

 

[Maxperson]

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

Yeah. I brought in the optional DMG rule that allows success with a consequence if you fail by a few points.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

I get that. I just think that the lock should be closed at least some of the time. Flat fail is often as much of fail forward as success and fail forward is. There are usually several paths forward and forward doesn't have to be through the locked door.

That's why in my game there's fail, succeed with a consequence(fail forward) and success.

 

[Reynard]

It's seems, like many other threads, that we are in the territory of arguing semantics as opposed to a concept.

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

This is why I don't agree with the idea put forth by the OP.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

5E explicitly has a fail forward or success at a cost mechanic built in.

But since it is in the DMG no one knows about it...

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. I brought in the optional DMG rule that allows success with a consequence if you fail by a few points.

It is not even really an "optional rule" in the traditional sense (like gritty long rests or whatever). It is described as one way to adjudicate die rolls, right along side pass/fail. It is one of the rules of the game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It is not even really an "optional rule" in the traditional sense (like gritty long rests or whatever). It is described as one way to adjudicate die rolls, right along side pass/fail. It is one of the rules of the game.

Still, there is at least on GM on this thread that doesn't always and perhaps never uses it. They gave example of how they narrate not-quite-there misses as more pleasant but still fail state results.

I think many GMs on this board haven't adjusted their style to incorporate modern RPG concepts like fail forward and player authoring because they just like to do things the way they always have done them.

I think fail forward is, like any tool, best used mixed with all the others. Not a one size fits all method and not an ultra rare exception either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why not? You don't think another equally ultra-skilled warrior can't block, parry and dodge 4 attacks from your ultra-skilled warrior?

LOL.

90% of the time the opponent you whiff against is anything but an "ultra-skilled warrior". The idea that it's a mirror-match has to be one of the least-D&D things I've read in years. Wild and bizarre take.

It's actually a rather exciting combat.

LOL.

These hot takes, you're going to melt Morrus' server dude! No-one thinks two Fighters missing each other with every attack is a "rather exciting combat". I don't think even you think that!

It sounds like those systems make a high level combat more like DBZ where they just hit each other back and forth until one drops.

Absolutely not, but if you've not played them, as you evidently haven't, this probably isn't the place to educate you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This farce problem is a problem with how you envision things.

Yeah me and a huge number of other people. Let's just blame everyone and pretend the mechanics are perfect lol.

As for dump stat characters rolling high, well sometimes they get lucky. A dump stat individual isn't clueless or totally unable to accomplish things, and someone with a high stat isn't perfect. That's not farcical at all.

It happens so often it is absolutely farcical. It should happen one roll in fifty at most. In reality it happens about one roll in five.