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

[Micah Sweet]

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"?

If a game has fumble and/or crit rules, I use them. I might describe it as particularly lucky or unlucky, but not in excess of what the rules allow. I do not see these as examples of narrative mechanics, and suspect many others don't either. This seems like an attempt to "gotcha" traditional-leaning players and promote Narrativism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 noticed none of your examples are D&D or a similar system.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If a game has fumble and/or crit rules, I use them. I might describe it as particularly lucky or unlucky, but not in excess of what the rules allow. I do not see these as examples of narrative mechanics, and suspect many others don't either. This seems like an attempt to "gotcha" traditional-leaning players and promote Narrativism.

That last sentence doesn't seem reasonable nor supportable - I feel like you need to look at yourself to find out why you think that.

I noticed none of your examples are D&D or a similar system.

The only system I can see I even mentioned in that post was Feng Shui so I'm confused as to what point you think you're making. Especially as you used a plural. Care to elucidate?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That last sentence doesn't seem reasonable nor supportable - I feel like you need to look at yourself to find out why you think that.


The only system I can see I even mentioned in that post was Feng Shui so I'm confused as to what point you think you're making. Especially as you used a plural. Care to elucidate?

I might have come off more intense than I should have; sorry about that. My experiences on this site lately are making me feel that Narrativist proponents (even if they also like other games) are really pushing the hard sell on their preferences, throwing shade on traditional playstyles (and by extension those who enjoy them) like a negative ad in a political campaign, and it is uncomfortable to me.

 

[Reynard]

If a game has fumble and/or crit rules, I use them. I might describe it as particularly lucky or unlucky, but not in excess of what the rules allow. I do not see these as examples of narrative mechanics, and suspect many others don't either. This seems like an attempt to "gotcha" traditional-leaning players and promote Narrativism.

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.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Strawman arguments that get endlessly repeated and the terms you use show bias. I happen to like D&Ds approach as DM and player. It has nothing to do with desperately trying to maintain control of my precious world or any of the other BS that comes up.

It's about clear roles and what works best for people. When I play I only want to think of my character and influence the world through their actions. My players feel the same.

I've read up on and tried games with a narrative approach (as well as D&D with a more narrative approach) and they just don't work for me. It's a preference and informed decision that I've made. It has nothing to do with "unreflective dislike of the idea that anyone but the DM made that get to narrate anything." Or narrative descriptions of the results.

 

[Reynard]

I might have come off more intense than I should have; sorry about that. My experiences on this site lately are making me feel that Narrativist proponents (even if they also like other games) are really pushing the hard sell on their preferences, throwing shade on traditional playstyles (and by extension those who enjoy them) like a negative ad in a political campaign, and it is uncomfortable to me.

Emphasis mine.

I am going to want to see receipts for this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, I get it. I don't do that beyond what the rules allow, and I'm not sure how common that idea is (although I obviously don't really know). Even so, what conclusion do you want us to draw from this?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Emphasis mine.

I am going to want to see receipts for this.

Do you agree on the hard sell suggestion?

 

[AlViking]

Emphasis mine.

I am going to want to see receipts for this.

You mean phrases like "It boils down to unreflective dislike of the idea that anyone but the DM made that get to narrate anything"? You really don't see how that's basically saying that shared narrative control is superior and it's the fault of the GM if that control is not shared?