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

[AlViking]

Maybe so, but if they don't know they can't succeed then IMO the roll should happen anyway; and only on a nat. 20 should they realize the task is in fact beyond them.

Unless it's something obviously ridiculous, I do the same. If I tell someone they can't succeed then the player knows without a doubt it's impossible. Sometimes I don't want to reveal that without an attempt.

 

[soviet]

THIS is exactly why "1" and "20" should not carry any "additional narrative power". Because some players will purposely come up with "narratives" that abruptly end the scene:

"Rexor cuts off the evil wizard's lips so he can't cast any more spells!

"Umley the Bold slashes off the deathknight's chestplate!"

Or, "1s" will be harmless mistakes that don't create any kind of inconvenience or drama. And I'm not "theorizin" - I've seen this happen in-game more than once. Some players can't be trusted with "fiat", which is why most ttrpgs only give it to GMs.

I don't know who you play with, but the people I play with wouldn't do this. I've done this kind of delegation as GM plenty of times and never had this kind of response.

 

[Horwath]

1&20 are just numbers on d20 like the remaining 18.

1+19 = 10+10 = 20+0

 

[Maxperson]

You get it.


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.

Perhaps you are unaware of the entirety of D&D history where DMs and tables alter rules to make the game play like they want.

It's YOU who doesn't get it. You're One True Wayism is unwelcome. If you want to play without 20's being different, that's great. You do you. If you try and tell people they are doing it wrong because they aren't playing the way YOU like, take it somewhere else.

 

[Maxperson]

THIS is exactly why "1" and "20" should not carry any "additional narrative power". Because some players will purposely come up with "narratives" that abruptly end the scene:

"Rexor cuts off the evil wizard's lips so he can't cast any more spells!

"Umley the Bold slashes off the deathknight's chestplate!"

Or, "1s" will be harmless mistakes that don't create any kind of inconvenience or drama. And I'm not "theorizin" - I've seen this happen in-game more than once. Some players can't be trusted with "fiat", which is why most ttrpgs only give it to GMs.

Sidenote: Does anyone know the first ttrpg to have rules for critical hits and who the designer was?

Um, no. Auto failure is still a thing. Not every longshot has a 1 in 20 chance of success. Players can't use it to accomplish anything they feel like. If you misunderstand what it's about that badly, no wonder you think it shouldn't be done.

 

[Maxperson]

None of that is what I was suggesting. This is an unnecessary alarmist reply.
The 1 and 20 is supposed to describe the failure and success not the ending the scene or gaining some sort of mechanic benefit. The rules of the game are still followed, you don't just get to declare decapitation or dismemberment.
The GM will let you know if the monster dies or loses a limb (i.e. roper tentacle) according to the creature's hit points or damage tally inflicted.

Yep. Players can't use it to create new rules.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Perhaps you are unaware of the entirety of D&D history whereby DMs and tables alter rules to make the game play like they want.

Perhaps you are unaware of all the games who play as RAW as possible? You start with the RAW and go from there--if you want to.

It's YOU who doesn't get it. You're One True Wayism is unwelcome. If you want to play without 20's being different, that's great. You do you. If you try and tell people they are doing it wrong because they aren't playing the way YOU like, take it somewhere else.

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".

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.

I stand by what I said:

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.

And later on...

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.

If you want to keep 1 in 20 dumb luck, enjoy your game. It makes for a poor experience when I've seen it because, guess what, 95% of the time the player FAILS and that hardly seems like "fun"--but maybe you enjoy that? Only you can determine that.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe so, but if they don't know they can't succeed then IMO the roll should happen anyway; and only on a nat. 20 should they realize the task is in fact beyond them.

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.

 

[Azzy]

Except no. If the group plays that way, then there is a result that achieves success. A 20. Telling them they shouldn't play that way is One True Wayism.

Except that's not the scenario being discussed.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

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.

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.