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

[Theory of Games]

With TTRPGs:

"Narrativist" refers to "telling a story"

"Simulationist" refers to "simulating how physics works"

"Gamist" refers to "playing a game using strategy to achieve victory conditions"

I think these terms are agreeable?

 

[Micah Sweet]

With TTRPGs:

"Narrativist" refers to "telling a story"

"Simulationist" refers to "simulating how physics works"

"Gamist" refers to "playing a game using strategy to achieve victory conditions"

I think these terms are agreeable?

I certainly hope so, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Mannahnin]

With TTRPGs:

"Narrativist" refers to "telling a story"

"Simulationist" refers to "simulating how physics works"

"Gamist" refers to "playing a game using strategy to achieve victory conditions"

I think these terms are agreeable?

Well, it seems to be a bit more complex than that.

GNS theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Threefold model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think for the purposes of this particular discussion Reynard is talking about a "narrative mechanic" as being a rule which explicitly enables and permits a player to change/add to the story, that is the narrative elements of the game, beyond simply "I pass or fail this task with this roll, and the DM narrates how".

 

[Theory of Games]

It's always an issue when people aren't sure what the OP is exactly about. Again, it's why I stress the importance of terminology.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's always an issue when people aren't sure what the OP is exactly about. Again, it's why I stress the importance of terminology.

Are you thinking it would have helped for the OP to have linked to the discussion of Daggerheart Hope and Fear mechanics for more direct context?

The discussion of Daggerheart and Hope and Fear got me thinking: D&D sort of has a unofficial "narrative mechanic" in the way that many tables deal with 1 and 20 results on the d20 when rolling for checks. This is especially visible in memes online, of course (Bards seducing liches on a nat 20, etc) but even jokes aside I think a lot of tables give those results extra weight in the emerging narrative. In these two specific, relatively uncommon (but 5% is not that low) outcomes, the die roll is no longer binary pass/fail. Many GMs and players want those results to have a more powerful impact on the fiction of the game.

And yet, many, many D&D players are uncomfortable with "narrative mechanics." It seems strange when I think of it that way.

What do you think? Are 1s and 20s unofficial "narrative mechanics" in D&D (especially 5e)? Do you give those results extra weight (beyond critical hits in combat)? How does it square with how you perceive games with explicit "narrative mechanics"?

I thought I was pretty clear in the OP, but perhaps not.

The "unofficial narrative rules" I am talking about are how players and GMs tend to extra weight to 1s and 20s when they come up during play, and adjust the flow of the game (aka the narrative) in response to those results. I was not talking about critical hits or fumbles.

 

[Theory of Games]

Definition is always helpful, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mannahnin]

Definition is always helpful, wouldn't you agree?

It's always helpful to have shared understanding, but I think diverging off into GNS or GDS theory would be a bit of a tangent from the thread.

I think the OP was using the word "narrative" in its colloquial meaning rather than the specific theoretical jargon of either one of those theories.

 

[Theory of Games]

I was only trying to find an agreement on terms. I never typed "GNS" or "GDS" because that wasn't my point. It is difficult for me - I'm slow - to follow a discussion when I can tell those involved don't understand what they are talking about. By "understand" I mean different people posting in the discussion have different interpretations of key words being used. It's a fault of mine, but I like a fair degree of clarity

 

[Hriston]

Your normal failure results are this extreme?

They can be. A failed ability checks in my games always comes with a consequence that follows from what's at stake in the situation, so if the PC(s) risk offending the baron to that extent, you betcha.

 

[Reynard]

They can be. A failed ability checks in my games always comes with a consequence that follows from what's at stake in the situation, so if the PC(s) risk offending the baron to that extent, you betcha.

You're missing the point. The reason why the baron arrested them in the example wasn't because they failed, but because they failed with a natural 1 specifically. That is the whole crux of the discussion.