D&D General 1s and 20s: D&D's Narrative Mechanics

[Stormonu]

Well, while crit/fumble in D&D is a bit narrative, it's quite different from the hope/fear mechanic of Daggerheart. The biggest, of course being that you can succeed with Fear as much as you can succeed with Hope - or the reverse, failing with Fear or failing with Hope.

The example in the Daggerheart book gives is jumping across a bridge to attack a Lich:

Critical (Hope & Fear numbers are the same; 12 in 144 chance) - you make the jump, hitting the Lich and disrupting his concentration on the spell he was casting, allowing your friends to scurry across and join you
Succeed with Hope (Total meets target, Hope die is higher) - you make the jump and hit the Lich
Succeed with Fear (Total meets target, Fear die is higher) - you make the jump, but the Lich blasts the bridge, isolating you on the side with your enemy
Fail with Hope (Total less than target, Hope die is higher) - you don't quite make the jump, but catch the edge and must pull yourself up (hopefully before the Lich attacks you)
Fail with Fear (Total less than target, Fear die is higher) - you don't make the jump and take a long fall to the ground below.

Of course, this result is worked out between the GM and Player narrating the results - but as you can see, the results cover a much broader set of results than D&D typically would - In D&D you'd likely only have the Critical, Succeed with Hope and Fail with Fear results.

It would be nice if D&D had a more graduated success (I think like Pathfinder 2E), but D&D currently has only a very basic - almost binary - results.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, while crit/fumble in D&D is a bit narrative, it's quite different from the hope/fear mechanic of Daggerheart. The biggest, of course being that you can succeed with Fear as much as you can succeed with Hope - or the reverse, failing with Fear or failing with Hope.

The example in the Daggerheart book gives is jumping across a bridge to attack a Lich:

Critical (Hope & Fear numbers are the same; 12 in 144 chance) - you make the jump, hitting the Lich and disrupting his concentration on the spell he was casting, allowing your friends to scurry across and join you
Succeed with Hope (Total meets target, Hope die is higher) - you make the jump and hit the Lich
Succeed with Fear (Total meets target, Fear die is higher) - you make the jump, but the Lich blasts the bridge, isolating you on the side with your enemy
Fail with Hope (Total less than target, Hope die is higher) - you don't quite make the jump, but catch the edge and must pull yourself up (hopefully before the Lich attacks you)
Fail with Fear (Total less than target, Fear die is higher) - you don't make the jump and take a long fall to the ground below.

Of course, this result is worked out between the GM and Player narrating the results - but as you can see, the results cover a much broader set of results than D&D typically would - In D&D you'd likely only have the Critical, Succeed with Hope and Fail with Fear results.

It would be nice if D&D had a more graduated success (I think like Pathfinder 2E), but D&D currently has only a very basic - almost binary - results that can

I have a graduated success system in my houserule document, based on how much you make or miss your roll, that I'd love to use. Unfortunately, I have a hard time convincing my players to go beyond BOG standard D&D 5e mechanics, so it's a work in progress.

 

[Azzy]

It would be nice if D&D had a more graduated success (I think like Pathfinder 2E), but D&D currently has only a very basic - almost binary - results.

5.24e approaches it, on page 30 of the DMG, where it discusses using degrees of success and failure.

 

[zakael19]

5.24e approaches it, on page 30 of the DMG, where it discusses using degrees of success and failure.

IIRC 5.14 has it in the DMG as an optional rule as well, the 5e math just doesn’t support it the way say PF2 or DH do.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you need more than 20 to succeed, or less than 1 to fail, the narrative should dictate a roll isn't even called for.

can i assume you mean here as a result on your dice rather than the total DC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess tactics.is the wrong word. You were accused of using BS, being biased, and using straw man arguments (at least one of those is definitely a tactic, now that I think of it).

Sure, but because of two factors, I see that as pretty good evidence of "special" hostility that is directed towards narrativism (and again, which used to be directed towards gamism, even before we called it that).

1) In the original post I made, I was pretty clear I was referring to a subsection of people who didn't enjoy narrativism. To quote:

I feel like a very large proportion of objections to narrative mechanics

So to me, a "very large proportion" means, like, probably "30-60%". I suspect most people would see it the same way. What it clearly and unarguably does not mean is "100%". So it's very much a case of "if the shoe fits", i.e. if it doesn't fit, then who cares what I think, right? Yet the decision was made to put the foot in shoe regardless of whether it fit! Which is to me odd. Like, when I read someone saying "A lot of D&D players are one-game players because they just have no idea about other games!", and I'm not going to go "Why are you talking about me like that?!!" I'm going to see it as "Well, they clearly don't mean me..." and move on. Or at least talk about the argument itself, rather than taking it as applying to me.

So that seems to me significant.

2) No evidence was provided to support any of the assertions of "BS", "bias" nor any identification of which arguments were "straw men" (and I think it's fair to say none of my arguments were "straw men" - they might be incorrect or silly or "BS" or w/e, but they're not "straw men", which is a very specific category of argument). I don't really care about "BS", I mean, it's cheap and meaningless and anyone can call anyone's arguments that, so fine! But I'm particularly interested to know about the "bias" because I know that I've advocated quite strongly for games which people identify as primarily gamist, primarily narrativist, even primarily simulationist (CoC and MERP for the latter), and that most games honestly combine elements of all three. So what's the bias exactly? Curious. We shall never know, I guess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It would be nice if D&D had a more graduated success (I think like Pathfinder 2E), but D&D currently has only a very basic - almost binary - results.

Yeah it's interesting that that seemed to concern some people, because to me that's not even a particularly narrative approach. Graduated successes which required interpretation existed long, long before GNS was ever discussed, and DMs and players have decided results together for as long as I've been playing (just the DM is the ultimate arbiter, which is still true in DH). If it was like, aggressively narrative, I'd expect the player to be given significantly more formal power to assert fiction - that's not uncommon even.

 

[AlViking]

Now, now. There is room for everyone's beliefs here when it comes to approach. That is my belief and you have no choice but to accept it. (This place definitely became a lot more feisty during the year I was away).

My approach was always more on the narrative side, but it did kick up a bit after watching Critical Role. Before that I'd ask people to really get into saying what their PC was doing and I'd try to tell a story around NPC actions - but it was a tennis game that went back and forth. After watching Critical Role and thinking about some of the DMs I'd seen at conventions that did things differently than me, but ran an amazing game, I started to attempt to give players some more narrative control. If the fighter rolled a critical that was going to finish off the BBEG, I'd encourage them to tell me what their PC did, but also what the NPC did that opened them up to the lethal blow.

In the end, I realized that sometimes that worked, and sometimes it didn't. Some players felt put on the spot and didn't know what to say - and that can be uncomfortable for them. Others wanted more opportunity to chip in. In general, I settled on gauging the response based upon how invested the player was at the moment. If they're excited, I give them more narrative attention and if they're more withdrawn, I pull back a little (but use some to try to bring their levels back up - it is a balance). This rolls back to 1s and 20s and giving the players more voice because those tend to be the most evocative of rolls - and pull players into or out of the game.

I try to add flair to the game but I do see two issues. One is that some people are oddly resistant to saying what their character does. I remember a player long ago that was playing a cleric and I encouraged him to say something in character. It was something along the lines of encouraging him to call upon Thor in first person. He stuttered and stammered trying to get words out. I don't put people on the spot like that anymore unless I'm pretty sure they're comfortable with it.

So while I like adding flair as GM or player, especially on 1s and 20s a lot of people don't.

 

[AlViking]

So your position is that you feel you are personally being persecuted by the narrativists thus it's okay for you to be as you put it "hostile"? Is that right? If so that is fascinating and really supports my point re unique hostility, I'd suggest.

It's pretty funny that you consider yourself a victim here when you've directly, personally and specifically accused me of "BS" and "bias" and "strawman arguments".

I do not feel personally persecuted. I also don't want to derail this thread any further.

 

[Bae'zel]

I try to add flair to the game but I do see two issues. One is that some people are oddly resistant to saying what their character does. I remember a player long ago that was playing a cleric and I encouraged him to say something in character. It was something along the lines of encouraging him to call upon Thor in first person. He stuttered and stammered trying to get words out. I don't put people on the spot like that anymore unless I'm pretty sure they're comfortable with it.

So while I like adding flair as GM or player, especially on 1s and 20s a lot of people don't.

That's basically what @jgsugden was saying: as a GM, "reading the room" is an incredibly valuable skill. With enough practice, you can tell which players are into that sort of thing vs. not, temporarily or all of the time.

My sister, for example. It takes a LOT to get her to feel comfortable taking the narrative reins on the spot. Occasionally, though, her mood is JUST RIGHT and it's hard to stop her getting all "narrativist".

With strangers I ask about this during "session zero" (or the equivalent first session where I get to know the players before diving in).