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

[Reynard]

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"?

 

[soviet]

What's a 'narrative mechanic'?

 

[Sossij]

I've tried to be good about coming up with terrible things to happen on 1s but I can't always think of clever things. I definitely do the "critical success on a 20" with skill checks that a few people find anathema.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel like a very large proportion of objections to narrative mechanics boil down to an unreflective dislike of the idea that anyone but the DM made that get to narrate anything. D&D has a lot of narrative stuff going on, but it's mostly the DM narrating and some people get very uncomfortable when they think about players doing that, even though realistically we've been inviting players to describe stuff for 30+ years in many cases. You can see this in posts sometimes quite clearly, where people express fears about players ruining the tone or aesthetic of "their" game, sometimes people even threaten to quit as DMs were such a thing to occur!

It's weird to me because in decades of playing games where players heavily describe stuff (particularly from Feng Shui onwards in the 1990s) I've not seen that to be a real problem. I have seen players destroy tone and so on, but that is almost always via obnoxious quoting (looking at you, Monty Python), constant in-character silly business, relentless bad jokes or the like. Whereas offhand I can't think of a time a player narrated something that didn't fit - on the direct contrary, some great ideas and elements have come from there.

But I do think fear of a loss of control is the main issue here, and that it's mostly forever DMs who are uncomfortable. The few players I've seen be uncomfortable have been ones who are either shy generally or who didn't have faith in their own abilities - ironically they're often pretty good at narrating.

The smaller fear I think is that the game will drag if people narrate everything but that surely applies to pure DM narration too (which is rarely seen as "narrative"), and again, that's almost never the case in my experience. What I have seen cause a drag is excessive reading from text boxes and the like, but that's the opposite of this!

 

[AlViking]

I don't treat a 1 as an automatic failure for skill checks, although if I remember the bonus the character has I wouldn't call for a check anyway. I tried critical failures for attacks years ago and quickly abandoned it. Meanwhile a 20 doesn't mean much either, it's more the resulting number that matters.

I'm sure other tables run things differently, I just don't see it mattering from a narrative standpoint very often.

 

[payn]

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 think this is largely going to be on the playstyle of the group. I've seen both folks apply narrative aspects to mechanics, and folks simply giving next level mechanical effects of a 1 or 20. For example, a 1 or 20 is simply succeeding or failing where it ought not to have happened. Despite great odds, its still just a binary result. Folks who tend to apply a more narrative spin on those results, tend to let that aspect creep into other elements of the system as well. So, while there is a meme level aspect to 1s and 20s, I dont think a narrative response to them is a given.

 

[AlViking]

I feel like a very large proportion of objections to narrative mechanics boil down to an unreflective dislike of the idea that anyone but the DM made that get to narrate anything. D&D has a lot of narrative stuff going on, but it's mostly the DM narrating and some people get very uncomfortable when they think about players doing that, even though realistically we've been inviting players to describe stuff for 30+ years in many cases. You can see this in posts sometimes quite clearly, where people express fears about players ruining the tone or aesthetic of "their" game, sometimes people even threaten to quit as DMs were such a thing to occur!

It's weird to me because in decades of playing games where players heavily describe stuff (particularly from Feng Shui onwards in the 1990s) I've not seen that to be a real problem. I have seen players destroy tone and so on, but that is almost always via obnoxious quoting (looking at you, Monty Python), constant in-character silly business, relentless bad jokes or the like. Whereas offhand I can't think of a time a player narrated something that didn't fit - on the direct contrary, some great ideas and elements have come from there.

But I do think fear of a loss of control is the main issue here, and that it's mostly forever DMs who are uncomfortable. The few players I've seen be uncomfortable have been ones who are either shy generally or who didn't have faith in their own abilities - ironically they're often pretty good at narrating.

The smaller fear I think is that the game will drag if people narrate everything but that surely applies to pure DM narration too (which is rarely seen as "narrative"), and again, that's almost never the case in my experience. What I have seen cause a drag is excessive reading from text boxes and the like, but that's the opposite of this!

I think that's a very biased take on the issue. If someone takes down a particularly dangerous opponent, I've stolen Matt Mercer's "How do you do it". When it comes to checks for acrobatics or similar, the players are free to describe how they succeeded or failure. It has nothing to do with "fear" that the players add to the cinematics and description, many players simply aren't very good or have no desire to add any fluff even when I encourage it.

The role of DM and player in world building and things external to the character's actions is a separate topic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that's a very biased take on the issue. If someone takes down a particularly dangerous opponent, I've stolen Matt Mercer's "How do you do it". When it comes to checks for acrobatics or similar, the players are free to describe how they succeeded or failure. It has nothing to do with "fear" that the players add to the cinematics and description, many players simply aren't very good or have no desire to add any fluff even when I encourage it.

The role of DM and player in world building and things external to the character's actions is a separate topic.

I don't think it is a separate topic really, given how linked they are, and that player world building quality is frequently cited as a concern with narrative systems (even ones where it isn't actually present or is optional!).

Re "biased", can you explain what you mean by that? I don't think I'm particularly biased here - on the direct contrary, I have a ton of experience with so-called "narrative" systems and ones which are not labelled that way. At the risk (certainty) of arrogance, I think my view is reasonably informed. Further, I don't have a strong preference for gamism or narrativism, and simulationism has it's merits too. Certainly I play in and run games which allegedly lean in all three directions.

Also re: players not being good at it, I think it's rather straightforward that if someone never or very rarely does something they won't be good at it! Certainly my players overall got a lot better at this playing Dungeon World than they had been previously. Reluctance is two pronged iny experience. Rarely are players genuinely averse to describing their own actions unless they're also basically averse to RP. Aversity to adding to world fluffy is more common especially as fewer games support it - but even many "narrative" games don't require that.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Many GMs and players want those results to have a more powerful impact on the fiction of the game.

And yet many don't. Remove the 1 and 20. Return to binary.

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.

 

[Reynard]

And yet many don't. Remove the 1 and 20. Return to binary.

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.

Why?