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

[Maxperson]

Perhaps you are unaware of all the games who play as RAW as possible?

I am not unaware. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Where you are going wrong is in saying/implying the other tables should do what you do. Things that you and you table find fun or unfun, are things that some other tables find to be unfun or fun. We are all different.

You start with the RAW and go from there--if you want to.

Sure.

I find it laughable how you seem to think my post was in any way a "One True Wayism" you seem to read from it? What more are you getting from it than what I wrote? Perhaps you should think about that because nothing I wrote implies "One True Wayism".

Do you not know what saying "people should..." or "the narrative should..." When you use "should" you are telling people how it it's supposed to be done for them, not just you.

This quote from you is telling people how their narrative should be played.

"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."

So, how about you stop taking my post as gospel and move along? You don't have to listen to me, and neither does anyone else.

How about instead of telling people what their narrative "should" do, you just say, "This is how we do it" or "This is what I like to do." Perhaps you didn't mean to engage in One True Wayism, but that's what your words did.

Make it more than just "1 in 20 dumb luck". Include a mechanic (the Force, Fate, Inspiration, Karma, whatever) which allows the narrative to be more player-driven and given them a reasonable chance at success on occasion when rules would dictate there is no chance at all.

Those things are good, but not all tables like them. I tried points and a few other ways to let my players do things that were more player-driven and they almost never used them.

My players don't want to do things that way, which is a little disappointing, but that's how it is. However, telling them that what they were trying to do will almost surely fail and the only way to succeed is to roll a 20 charged them up. They would gather around to watch the roll, and if/when that 20 hit, they would cheer. Not hitting the 20 wouldn't be disappointing, because they didn't expect it to work.

 

[Maxperson]

Given that it's the DM that asks for rolls and knows that the player cannot possibly succeed at the roll, why ask the player to roll? That seems like a waste of everyone's' time.

Yeah. If there's no chance of success, I'll just narrate a failure. I'm not going to waste time having them roll for things that auto succeed or auto fail. Rolls are for when the outcome is uncertain.

 

[Imaro]

I think alot of players and DM's divy up narrative control in D&D implicitely, without rules and not necessarily as the game suggests. I think it's a natural outcome of playing almost any ttrpg.

1. I think there are ttrpg's that codify and enforce how narrative control is divided between the players (and bu this I mean the actual mechanical structure and play of the game rely on this)... D&D is not really one of those games

2. D&D for better or worse (personal oppinion and all) allows a group to turn the dial of narrative control without it inherently affecting the game's mechanics... even allowing specific adjustments to be tailored to specific players in the same game.

3. So why are many D&D players averse to a game that hardcodes that dial?

My thoughts are that its because it hard codes that dial. It takes flexibility away and only offers a better experience if all of your players are comfortable with and moreso enjoy the specific way game X chooses to designate narrative control.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Do you not know what saying "people should..." or "the narrative should..." When you use "should" you are telling people how it it's supposed to be done for them, not just you.

This quote from you is telling people how their narrative should be played.

"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."

No, that is you reading it that way. This is a forum, right, everything here is opinion and preference, and rarely facts presented as such.

The DMGs even stress about when to call for a roll and when not to. If a DC is so high there is no chance to succeed, you don't waste time calling for a roll, you just narrate it fails. Likewise, if there is little to no challenge (low DC) and the PC can't fail even with a 1, why roll because you know they will automatically succeed.

How about instead of telling people what their narrative "should" do, you just say, "This is how we do it" or "This is what I like to do." Perhaps you didn't mean to engage in One True Wayism, but that's what your words did.

Nope, just how you read it. It should be obvious to you by now that wasn't what I meant, even if you read it that way.

 

[AlViking]

Even more so when you consider how disappointed a player is who rolls an 18 or 19 and is told they fail because they needed a 21 or higher, which they couldn't roll.

In our games the DMs have just gotten to the point where a 15 or better works, while a 5 or lower fails. In between we'll actiually bother with the math to see if there is success or failure.

But that just seems to negate a lot of character building decisions. I regularly make choices so that my fighter is decent at persuasion for example which means that I probably didn't up one of my other abilities that would be useful. It also makes expertise kind of pointless.

As far as failing on a 1 or not, I don't remember what everybody's bonuses are. If the DC is 10 or even more at higher levels, they might still succeed with a 1 if it's something they're particularly good at.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Think what you want. I mean, you do realize the whole 20 always succeeds and 1 always fails only pertains RAW to combat, right? For checks and saves it doesn't.

Is this only true theoretically?

In the rules as written you aren't wrong. But in practice I think there is more to look at. The social aspect in a ttrpg matters. We don't play these games in the basement, while in our underwear eating Cheetos. At least I dont. Minecraft fills that niche.

This is important. This social aspect has a large impact on how we play. Many concessions are made in the game to this social contract. Such as how common session 0 is. Anytime the DM deviates from their own plan. It's a contant give and take between everyone at the table, in an effort to have a "good time."

So what happens if a DM asks for a skill check and the player rolls a natural 20 and fails? They haven’t just failed a check—they’ve had their time wasted. From a mechanical standpoint, it’s defensible: maybe the DC was 30 and the player couldn’t reasonably succeed. But from a social standpoint it's an unforced error. It's a feel bad moment. Why prompt a roll if failure was inevitable? Why ask for input only to ignore it?

You can reverse this to success. Why ask for the roll? This doesn’t mean DMs must always reward 20s or punish 1s. But it does mean they should be thoughtful about why they’re calling for a check at all. If success is impossible or irrelevant, don’t ask for a roll. If you do, you’re creating a moment that asks for shared stakes and tension—and if a player rolls a 20, ignoring that moment feels like breaking a promise.

So 1's and 20s don't matter because of the rules. They matter because of respect for each other's time, and for that idea that when we touch the dice, we’re all agreeing to see what unfolds together.

 

[Reynard]

The OP question was really not about auto success or failure.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

But that just seems to negate a lot of character building decisions. I regularly make choices so that my fighter is decent at persuasion for example which means that I probably didn't up one of my other abilities that would be useful. It also makes expertise kind of pointless.

What does?

Is this only true theoretically?

No. It is how most games play in my experience anyway. For checks and saves, a 1 doesn't always fail and a 20 does always succeed. I know many groups probably extend the combat rules into checks and saves, but I don't, my groups don't, and frankly never have.

Do I want my STR 8 PC with no proficiency in Athletics to be able to leap a 20-foot chasm (at DC 20) just because they rolled a natural 20? No. The group and PCs have to find another way. Think of it this way: if I DID want that... what are the results if I don't roll the natural 20? I fall to my death maybe! No thank you.

The OP question was really not about auto success or failure.

Look at you: trying to get the thread back on track! Go, man, go!!

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"?

No, they are nothing special. We don't even give weight to 20's in combat anymore as we moved to critical damage instead of critical hits years ago--it works much better.

Back in the day? It was only for combat. At one time 1's were "fumbles" and 20's were "crits", and so on, and in other systems like Star Wars the higher the check the better the result for force skills, so a 20 was great then and often got some narrative "oomph!".

Would I baulk at a game that used narrative 1s and 20s for things? No, I could roll with it. Nat 20 on the Thieves' tools to pick the lock and it is a bonus action or even free object interaction! Why not? Not my thing personally, but whateves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My thoughts are that its because it hard codes that dial. It takes flexibility away and only offers a better experience if all of your players are comfortable with and moreso enjoy the specific way game X chooses to designate narrative control.

I mean, I think there are two issues with this:

1) Relatively few games do "hard code that dial" though. And the games people object to explicitly don't. Daggerheart is a great example. One can't even argue that it "hard codes that dial", because it explicitly, repeatedly explicitly, does not. You could go anywhere between the players creating large amounts of the fiction, and the players creating basically none of the fiction.

2) It's clear people many object without knowing how the dial is "hard coded" even where it is, whilst some people, like @AlViking are speaking from experience, many people clearly are not. So we've necessarily got to look lower in the chain of causation for the cause, at least for a lot of people, maybe even the majority of people who object generally "to narrative games" or "narrative mechanics". And I would suggest that cause is much more straightforward - they don't really like the idea of this part of the game being discussed or considered at all. And there can be more than one reason for that - I think one major one is that some people's sense of immersion relies on them very much not thinking about the origin of the narrative, treating the game as if it is a simulation, even though, were they to stop and consider it, even for a few minutes, it would be obvious it is not. I could give examples but it'd get tedious, still I think the point is fairly clear.

Your broader point about groups divvying up narrative control without even thinking about it is undoubtedly true imho, I just don't think the objection is really due to different configurations of divvying up, as much as it is to pointing out that narrative control is even a thing that exists and can be divvied up.

 

[Lanefan]

Given that it's the DM that asks for rolls and knows that the player cannot possibly succeed at the roll, why ask the player to roll? That seems like a waste of everyone's' time.

Simple answer: if the in-game characters, as reflected by the player's knowledge, don't realize a task is beyond them (which can often be the case) and the roll comes up 4, they don't and shouldn't know whether they failed due to bad luck or failed because they couldn't succeed. They just know - both in and out of character - they failed this time and have to try something else.