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

[Theory of Games]

What's a 'narrative mechanic'?

When you take your vehicle in for scheduled maintenance, the guy who tells you a story about how you need a new $5,000 transmission that isn't covered by your warranty is "a narrative mechanic"

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If you're referring to the idea that roll results are on something of an informal sliding scale beyond just simple pass-fail, I've always taken that to be a given. ::

DC 15 lock. Roll a 14 and I'd say something like "You think you almost got it but it beat you in the end". Roll a 2 and I'd say something like "This lock completely baffles you."

DC 10 jump across a gap. Roll a 12 and I'd say something like "You make it, but that wasn't exactly graceful". Roll a 19 and I'd say something like "You sail across the gap and stick the landing nicely."

 

[AlViking]

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.

I do use scaled success and failure myself. For example if someone is trying to exceed their jump distance by 5 feet or less in almost all cases nothing truly bad happens if they fail other than they lose half movement because they're hanging from the ledge. But it's pretty ad-hoc and situational for me.

 

[AlViking]

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).

I'm really comfortable with ad-hoc descriptions and making things up on the fly, but some people just aren't even if they run games on a regular basis. I think improv is a skill and something that you can improve with practice, but some people will just never get comfortable with it even for pretty minor stuff.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

but some people just aren't even if they run games on a regular basis

I have to admit, 35 years I've played with a lot of DMs, and I've never come across one who couldn't make up ad-hoc descriptions who wasn't totally new to RPGs entirely - even then a lot of totally new people are immediately good at it because it's a basic skill! You have to be able to do it, because otherwise all you can is maximum-strength railroads, and not even those well.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

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

Yes, I believe you can.

To be clear I mean if (even with modifiers) a natural 20 would not succeed, it shouldn't be rolled. For example, A CON save with +1 vs. DC 22 would need a "21" rolled to succeed. This means a 20 is not sufficient so remove the "natural 20 always succeeds" and instead, if you don't like something that will always fail (in such a case), add a mechanic like Fate, Luck, Grit, the "Force" or whatever which is player-driven to allow their PC to possibly succeed when they would otherwise fail.

Something like Inspiration. Instead of it just being advantage, make it a "proficiency die" roll (i.e. a d4 to a d12 depending on level).

Imagine the above scenario where a tier 4 PC (proficiency +6 so proficiency die d12) has CON 12 +1 but must make a CON save against DC 22. But, allow them to spend "inspiration" or whatever to include a d12 to the roll and they have a 32% chance to make it (d20+d12+1 vs. DC 22).

You could also just allow adding proficiency again (flat +6) instead of the random d12 if people don't like the idea of getting unlucky and a 1 on the d12. However you want to do it really that works best.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Even when I do add flair like that,from either side, it doesn't make the effect different mechanically, so I really can't see it as a "narrative mechanic".

 

[AlViking]

I have to admit, 35 years I've played with a lot of DMs, and I've never come across one who couldn't make up ad-hoc descriptions who wasn't totally new to RPGs entirely - even then a lot of totally new people are immediately good at it because it's a basic skill! You have to be able to do it, because otherwise all you can is maximum-strength railroads, and not even those well.

My wife just runs linear campaign modules and spends vastly more time in prep than I do. She can handle the small stuff just fine when she DMs but it takes a lot of effort for her. I've had some though that were just deer in the headlights frozen at the thought of improv.

 

[Laurefindel]

Yes, as much as I may seemed reluctant to narrative results in the Daggerheart thread, special results happening twice in 20 rolls in average is an acceptable frequency.

For years now, I’ve been treating 20s like a success with bonus, and 1s as a complication leading to a failure.

Not a fan of fumbles in combat but out of combat, 1s are a good opportunity to bring a narrative element that complicates things.

 

[Reynard]

If you're referring to the idea that roll results are on something of an informal sliding scale beyond just simple pass-fail, I've always taken that to be a given. ::.

But I'm not andi honestly can't figure out how to make what I'm saying more clear.