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

[Micah Sweet]

All the Shadowdark tables I've seen have been pretty short, evocative and cool. I like a good table, just not endless pages of dull ones!

Of course, dull is in the eye of the beholder. The Monster Overhaul has a ton of tables, long and short, but I love 'em all!

 

[AlViking]

You did not, in fact, explain it. The reality is that narrative styles and games face some peculiar and specific hostility in the present day and calling pointing that out "bias" is a bit silly. It's interesting to me because that hostility didn't emerge until they became popular and somewhat mainstream, as much as any non-D&D game can be said to be such. Prior to that there was similar hostility towards gamism, but three primarily gamist editions of D&D largely put paid to that!

If there's hostility it's because we're constantly being told that we only play games like D&D using the base assumptions because GMs demand control, are afraid of different approaches or are just ignorant.

People who prefer narrative games just can't seem to let it go or accept that we know what we're doing and why and that it's a preference shared by GM and player alike.

I'm not the one stuck on this, I don't see what else there is to say that hasn't been said a countless times.

 

[jgsugden]

Now, now. There is room for everyone's beliefs here when it comes to approach. That is my belief and you have no choice but to accept it. (This place definitely became a lot more feisty during the year I was away).

My approach was always more on the narrative side, but it did kick up a bit after watching Critical Role. Before that I'd ask people to really get into saying what their PC was doing and I'd try to tell a story around NPC actions - but it was a tennis game that went back and forth. After watching Critical Role and thinking about some of the DMs I'd seen at conventions that did things differently than me, but ran an amazing game, I started to attempt to give players some more narrative control. If the fighter rolled a critical that was going to finish off the BBEG, I'd encourage them to tell me what their PC did, but also what the NPC did that opened them up to the lethal blow.

In the end, I realized that sometimes that worked, and sometimes it didn't. Some players felt put on the spot and didn't know what to say - and that can be uncomfortable for them. Others wanted more opportunity to chip in. In general, I settled on gauging the response based upon how invested the player was at the moment. If they're excited, I give them more narrative attention and if they're more withdrawn, I pull back a little (but use some to try to bring their levels back up - it is a balance). This rolls back to 1s and 20s and giving the players more voice because those tend to be the most evocative of rolls - and pull players into or out of the game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If there's hostility it's because we're constantly being told that we only play games like D&D using the base assumptions because GMs demand control, are afraid of different approaches or are just ignorant.

People who prefer narrative games just can't seem to let it go or accept that we know what we're doing and why and that it's a preference shared by GM and player alike.

I'm not the one stuck on this, I don't see what else there is to say that hasn't been said a countless times.

So your position is that you feel you are personally being persecuted by the narrativists thus it's okay for you to be as you put it "hostile"? Is that right? If so that is fascinating and really supports my point re unique hostility, I'd suggest.

It's pretty funny that you consider yourself a victim here when you've directly, personally and specifically accused me of "BS" and "bias" and "strawman arguments".

 

[Charlaquin]

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 see what you’re saying, in that groups often run 1s and 20s as causing outcomes beyond mere success and failure, which often involve affecting the narrative in ways beyond the direct control of the character performing the action. It’s often not just “you performed this action exceptionally well/poorly,” but something more along the lines of “this crazy thing incidentally happens to result in a better/worse outcome.”

I think the reason this is more tolerated within D&D circles than other so-called narrative mechanics is because it usually doesn’t involve a decision by the player. It happens randomly, so D&D players are more comfortable with it than they would be if the player got to consciously decide to turn a success into a critical success or failure into a critical failure, perhaps by spending some limited resource, or by giving the DM an opportunity to introduce some complication later or something along those lines. As @Ruin Explorer observed, some DMs are uncomfortable with players being able to affect the narrative beyond the direct actions of their characters. I also think some players don’t like to make decisions about things outside their character’s direct actions. Some players prefer to immerse themselves in their character by trying to make their thought process align as close to 1:1 with their characters’ as reasonably possible, and being asked to make a decision about the narrative that their character would have no way to directly cause breaks them out of that synchronicity. But something extra-special or extra-awful randomly happening 5% of the time doesn’t cause the same feeling, because they didn’t have to consciously choose for it to happen.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Why?

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.

It comes down to reasonable chances. At 5% (either end) you are completely relying on dumb luck or cursing it. Neither of which IME make for a good narrative. In such cases, the PCs should either auto-succeed: they are so good that failing under such circumstances becomes laughable--and not in a good way. or auto-fail: the challenge is beyond what the PC is capable of. If you need more than a 20, you have no chance really and reflecting that at times in the game emphasizes a weakness. Also, if you are relying on that 1 in 20 chance to "save the day", you are very much likely to fail, in which case you let everyone down anyway. It is great when it happens, but really how often is that? (Well, 1 in 20 times, which IME isn't much fun.)

It is why I like mechanics which allow for "auto-success" when the player needs to drive the narrative but the character is lacking and unlikely do achieve success by a single die roll. Or at least a mechanic which has a cost, but increases chances in those moments, like using Force dice in SW. In D&D, it would be somelike like spending a HD to gain a +X or dY to a roll.

However, such situations are so rare in 5E that it probably wouldn't be worth adding. I can't recall the last time a PC actually needed a 20+ to succeed at something, especially not something you would expect their PC to be doing anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So your position is that you feel you are personally being persecuted by the narrativists thus it's okay for you to be as you put it "hostile"? Is that right? If so that is fascinating and really supports my point re unique hostility, I'd suggest.

It's pretty funny that you consider yourself a victim here when you've directly, personally and specifically accused me of "BS" and "bias" and "strawman arguments".

If a person believes those tactics are being used to attack their preferences, it is IMO completely understandable to see.themselves as a victim in that case.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree that WotC's game designs are strongly gamist (to different degrees of course, and obviously there's other stuff going on too). 5.5 is definitely more Narrativist-leaning than their previous non-4e offerings though.

It does seem to me that fans of Simulation are having their preferences steadily chipped away in the larger hobby (and certainly in the larger industry), however, and I can certainly understand not wanting to take that in silence.

Yeah but what's interesting to me is people who prefer the dwindling numbers of simulationist games don't tend to be the ones expressing hostility. Rather it is often fans of D&D, very much including 5E, which as you say is more narrative influenced than pre-4E editions. Like that Reddit post, it didn't even acknowledge simulationism, it just pitted narrativism and gamism against each - which is pretty funny given how many games have significant amounts of both! Outgunned being a perfect example.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If a person believes those tactics are being used to attack their preferences, it is IMO completely understandable to see.themselves as a victim in that case.

Which tactics?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which tactics?

I guess tactics.is the wrong word. You were accused of using BS, being biased, and using straw man arguments (at least one of those is definitely a tactic, now that I think of it).