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

[Maxperson]

Players can do whatever they want IF the GM gives them the space to do it. Which is why I suggest rolling a "1" or a "20" should be nothing special. Or if those rolls are defined as "crits", what happens should be clearly determined during Session 0

I don't personally see an issue with the bolded statement. If the players want to do that and the DM is okay with it, why shouldn't a 1 or 20 allow players to do stuff like that? I wouldn't play that way, even though 1s and 20s are special in my game, but a group that is more narrative oriented and enjoys players coming up with stuff when a 1 or 20 is rolled seems fine by me. The important part is for the group to be having fun.

I'm posting exclusively for the novice GMs who could run into issues. Experienced GMs will probably have a handle on this. Maybe.

I learned the hard way as a 13 year old learning 1e without help. I think running into issues is fine. You learn from the mistake and come up with something better for you and your group. Either by dropping whatever it is that created the issue, or tweaking the house rule into something that better fits the DM/Group vision. I'm not really a fan of rules designed to keep mistakes from being made. Mistakes aren't usually a serious issue.

 

[AlViking]

What does?

If you say that a die roll of 5 or lower fails and 15 or better always works, then for half the rolls proficiency is not counted. Take the example of an athletics check Bobby the Barbarian has a +8 to his athletics, he should never fail a DC 5 check even on a 1. Presto the Wizard has a -1 to his athletics so if the DC is 15 they would fail an athletics check by 1 when they roll a 15 if you are following the rules. Meanwhile for some truly difficult tasks of say a 20 or or higher, some people simply shouldn't be able to accomplish it. When the characters are higher levels, sometimes you can have DCs of 25 or higher so you need to be highly skilled and a bit lucky to succeed.

It's a significant difference to whether or not proficiency matters. It's fine if it works for you I would just disagree that it's a good house rule.

 

[MGibster]

For 5th Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo, I use critical rolls as written. If you roll a 20 during a fight you score a critical hit. Roll double your damage dice and let's get on with the show! I natural 20 rolled on a skill check is not an automatic success nor is rolling a 1 a critical failure. I'll use critical failures in other games, but it's been decades since I used them in D&D. Like I think it was during the first Bush administration.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

If you say that a die roll of 5 or lower fails and 15 or better always works, then for half the rolls proficiency is not counted. Take the example of an athletics check Bobby the Barbarian has a +8 to his athletics, he should never fail a DC 5 check even on a 1. Presto the Wizard has a -1 to his athletics so if the DC is 15 they would fail an athletics check by 1 when they roll a 15 if you are following the rules. Meanwhile for some truly difficult tasks of say a 20 or or higher, some people simply shouldn't be able to accomplish it. When the characters are higher levels, sometimes you can have DCs of 25 or higher so you need to be highly skilled and a bit lucky to succeed.

It's a significant difference to whether or not proficiency matters. It's fine if it works for you I would just disagree that it's a good house rule.

I thought you were talking about that part, but wanted to make certain.

The bonuses (i.e. proficiency+) are assumed. We don't use this if you aren't proficient or have a +5 ability. The way it came into being was through attacking. At 1st level, most PCs are +5, so if they roll 15, they hit AC 20. Very few games are going to have AC over 21, so it is a very safe bet that if you roll 15, you're gonna hit. At the other end, since the minimum AC is often 10 (often higher), a roll below 5 means you missed. So, it is also a safe bet that rolling 5 or lower fails.

Since most skill checks run in the 10-20 range as well, it works for those, too. In your example, Bobby at +8 cannot fail a DC 5 check so the DM would never even call for a roll--it would be pointless and a waste of time.

And to be clear, it is a "general rule of thumb" sort of houserule. Sure, sometimes it might mean someone makes a roll when technically they should have failed by 1, or fails a roll technically they should have made, but frankly it speeds up the game A LOT for our group--its purpose for being--so is actually a really good house rule.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Ok... my experience with Daggerheart specifically is non-existent, though I have ordered it... I thought the question was specifically about having a problem with narrative mechanics... which would be codified, right? Or did I misunderstand?

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.

I think perhaps we should give some examples of the specific narrative mechanics you feel many who play 5e have a problem with.

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.

Eh... im not sold on your conclusion here since no ones arguing it doesn't exist (are they??) or that it can't be divvied up... instead it seems the discussion centers on the preference of how and how much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sometimes 95% failure becomes worth it when that 5% success comes through.

95% of the time it doesn't. Which is...literally the point. It's a rule that makes a cool thing happen only quite rarely.

That, and despite everything the players can do to migitate the odds, the game is still at its heart a gamble.

No, it isn't. You can keep asserting this all you like--it is simply not true.

When some aspects of mitigating the odds result in "you just succeed" (whether that is "you cannot roll low enough to fail" or "you cannot roll high enough to succeed"), it is not and cannot be "at its heart a gamble". Doubly so because you want that word to mean something much, much stronger than the facts of the matter support: specifically, you are quite clearly using "a gamble" to mean something along the lines of "you have no idea whether you'll succeed or fail, so stop worrying about it". This is simply, flatly untrue, unless the DM labors rather a lot to force it to be true.

Embrace that, and it all makes far more sense.

I mean, the principle of explosion certainly does mean everything makes sense. But that "everything" is literally EVERYTHING--all possible statements, no matter how ridiculous, follow from a contradiction. If we embrace something that is fundamentally not true, all results from that conclusion are suspect. (Not necessarily wrong, but unjustified--the whole "a stopped clock is right twice a day" thing, where some coincidentally right answers will still happen.)

---------

As for the thread topic itself:
If the DM does in fact make a Special Thing out of nat 1s and nat 20s, e.g. a critical roll on a skill is especially or uniquely beneficial, I could allow that as a relatively crude narrative mechanic. Likewise if a fumble (nat 1) is especially or uniquely bad. The frustrations (mostly on the DM side) that arise from the nat-20 permitting a frustrating or weird action, and those that arise (mostly on the PC side) from fumble rules, are evidence enough of the crudeness of this technique, but in the sense that it shapes the in-the-moment...I'm not sure what to call it. "Process" isn't quite the right word, and "narration" feels a bit strong...but I guess that's the closest thing. It shapes the in-the-moment narration and creates the unexpected.

I agree that it's a little weird that (from my perspective) a huge swathe of old-school DMs absolutely adore things like fumble tables and special results on a nat 20 (or for 6 on 1d6 or various other things), and then make signs against evil at even the slightest bit of narrative mechanics. But this is rather in keeping with a great deal of D&D tradition: venerate that which was laid down by the Great Masters, repudiate anything that was not. Accept, even glorify, the weird and the unusual that the Great Masters added in the Dawn Times; reject, even vilify, the weird and the unusual that came after. People wanting to play a dragon-person? GOD IN HEAVEN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO D&D????? But people wanting to explore a crashed UFO to steal laser guns and power armor? F--- yeah, sign me up for the Barrier Peaks yesterday!!!

 

[Lanefan]

95% of the time it doesn't. Which is...literally the point. It's a rule that makes a cool thing happen only quite rarely.

Better than it never happening at all.

No, it isn't. You can keep asserting this all you like--it is simply not true.

When some aspects of mitigating the odds result in "you just succeed" (whether that is "you cannot roll low enough to fail" or "you cannot roll high enough to succeed"), it is not and cannot be "at its heart a gamble".

Sure, sometimes you can do enough to take the gamble out of it.

But if that die is still in your hand and you're about to roll it, it's a gamble.

Doubly so because you want that word to mean something much, much stronger than the facts of the matter support: specifically, you are quite clearly using "a gamble" to mean something along the lines of "you have no idea whether you'll succeed or fail, so stop worrying about it".

I can have 95% odds of success or 95% odds of failure or anything in between; but it seems self-evident that I have no idea whether I'll succeed or fail until I roll the die against those odds.

So yes, once it gets to rolling dice there's no point worrying about it as it's out of your hands now.

I agree that it's a little weird that (from my perspective) a huge swathe of old-school DMs absolutely adore things like fumble tables and special results on a nat 20 (or for 6 on 1d6 or various other things), and then make signs against evil at even the slightest bit of narrative mechanics. But this is rather in keeping with a great deal of D&D tradition: venerate that which was laid down by the Great Masters, repudiate anything that was not. Accept, even glorify, the weird and the unusual that the Great Masters added in the Dawn Times; reject, even vilify, the weird and the unusual that came after. People wanting to play a dragon-person? GOD IN HEAVEN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO D&D?????

Not just dragon-people. All the ex-monsters that have become PC-playable are a nuisance, if for no other reason than now we have to invent other monsters to take their (human-ish-but-not-human) place.

But people wanting to explore a crashed UFO to steal laser guns and power armor? F--- yeah, sign me up for the Barrier Peaks yesterday!!!

I've run futuristic-themed adventures in D&D once in a while as a change of pace but have never run Barrier Peaks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Better than it never happening at all.

Is it?

Seriously. Is it? Or is it worse, because it dangles vain hope in front of you that will, nearly every time, be dashed?

Remember that scummy design in a variety of things specifically preys on human psychology about things like this. It's one of the reasons why "loot box" games, "gacha" games, and other things that really are a gamble are required--by European law, anyway--to list the probabilities of the stuff you can get from a given box/pull/spin/etc.

Sure, sometimes you can do enough to take the gamble out of it.

But if that die is still in your hand and you're about to roll it, it's a gamble.

No, it isn't. Period. It isn't "a gamble". It's probability. That's not the same thing.

I can have 95% odds of success or 95% odds of failure or anything in between; but it seems self-evident that I have no idea whether I'll succeed or fail until I roll the die against those odds.

Yes. There's probability involved. Not the same thing. A gacha game is a gamble. A roulette wheel is a gamble. Craps is a gamble (hence crapshoot).

Risk includes dice--but it isn't a gamble. It's a game of skill and strategy that happens to involve dice to ensure that it cannot be simply solved. That's a far, far cry from being "a gamble".

So yes, once it gets to rolling dice there's no point worrying about it as it's out of your hands now.

Of course there's a point worrying about it. Otherwise we wouldn't care what happens next.

Not just dragon-people. All the ex-monsters that have become PC-playable are a nuisance, if for no other reason than now we have to invent other monsters to take their (human-ish-but-not-human) place.

Do we?

I don't see any problem with dragonborn fighting dragons. In fact, canonically in the Forgotten Realms, dragonborn have a cultural hatred of dragons. I see nothing wrong with genasi fighting genies or aasimar fighting fallen angels (Zariel, anyone?), or tieflings fighting fiends. Where does this "if you can play a thing that has a drop of X in it, X is no longer a valid enemy" come from?

I've run futuristic-themed adventures in D&D once in a while as a change of pace but have never run Barrier Peaks.

Okay. I don't see how that....really changes any of what I said? Like you first grant the very point I was trying to make, and then seem to be trying to extract a disagreeing position from hit somehow?

Like...what is your point here? You grant that space-aliens and technobabble can be part of what D&D is, but those things are, I should think, objectively more different from the "core" of D&D than dragon-people or devil-people or genie-people.

 

[Lanefan]

Is it?

Seriously. Is it? Or is it worse, because it dangles vain hope in front of you that will, nearly every time, be dashed?

Never played the lottery, then?

Remember that scummy design in a variety of things specifically preys on human psychology about things like this. It's one of the reasons why "loot box" games, "gacha" games, and other things that really are a gamble are required--by European law, anyway--to list the probabilities of the stuff you can get from a given box/pull/spin/etc.

No, it isn't. Period. It isn't "a gamble". It's probability. That's not the same thing.

Yes. There's probability involved. Not the same thing. A gacha game is a gamble. A roulette wheel is a gamble. Craps is a gamble (hence crapshoot).

Risk includes dice--but it isn't a gamble. It's a game of skill and strategy that happens to involve dice to ensure that it cannot be simply solved. That's a far, far cry from being "a gamble".

The dice part is still a gamble. Once the decisions have been made and the odds have been set, the moment you turn it over to probability it becomes a gamble.

Do we?

I don't see any problem with dragonborn fighting dragons. In fact, canonically in the Forgotten Realms, dragonborn have a cultural hatred of dragons. I see nothing wrong with genasi fighting genies or aasimar fighting fallen angels (Zariel, anyone?), or tieflings fighting fiends. Where does this "if you can play a thing that has a drop of X in it, X is no longer a valid enemy" come from?

IMO about 2/3 to 3/4, if not more, of the PC-playable species in today's 5e should still be non-PC-playable monsters. And yes, that includes both Dragonborn and Tieflings.

Why? Because to make them PC-playable they have to be blandified to the point they're vaguely (and ever more closely) balanced with Humans; and what's the point of that?

Okay. I don't see how that....really changes any of what I said? Like you first grant the very point I was trying to make, and then seem to be trying to extract a disagreeing position from hit somehow?

Like...what is your point here? You grant that space-aliens and technobabble can be part of what D&D is, but those things are, I should think, objectively more different from the "core" of D&D than dragon-people or devil-people or genie-people.

Going the other direction in history, dinosaurs can be part of D&D as well.

The futuristic parts of my setting come, ironically, from its very distant past when ancient Hobgoblins did have space travel and artificial satellites and high-grade science and cryo-pods etc. etc., that was then mostly lost for an extremely long time other than a few random bits turning up now and then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Never played the lottery, then?

Not personally. I'm quite well aware that it is a way to fleece people of their money. Far more people desperate to win than will ever actually win. I see no point or value to it.

The dice part is still a gamble. Once the decisions have been made and the odds have been set, the moment you turn it over to probability it becomes a gamble.

Nnnnnnnope! Again: Risk. Not the oldest strategy game in the world, but certainly the grandad of board game strategy games. It contains dice. That doesn't make playing it in any way comparable to spinning the roulette wheel. It contains probability. It's not "a gamble".

"A gamble" implies long-shot victory, unlikely scenarios, barely surviving the odds, etc., etc. That isn't what you have in Risk. Yes, it contains a probability mechanic, which can, extraordinarily rarely, lead to otherwise sound strategies failing to succeed. That doesn't make it suddenly "a gamble" and in no way a game of skill and strategy. The skill and strategy remain by far the most important part of the experience--the probability only there to tousle things artfully now and then. D&D is much the same, especially since you can manipulate the odds in your favor.

IMO about 2/3 to 3/4, if not more, of the PC-playable species in today's 5e should still be non-PC-playable monsters. And yes, that includes both Dragonborn and Tieflings.

Yes, I'm quite well aware of your hostility to contemporary preferences.

Why? Because to make them PC-playable they have to be blandified to the point they're vaguely (and ever more closely) balanced with Humans; and what's the point of that?

It's not bland to me or the folks who like these things. Xenofiction would be bland--I'd have nothing to relate to or think about because it would be incomprehensibly alien. Getting to play something that is like a human, but not a human, is interesting to me. Getting to play a being who shares something of what it means to be "a dragon", but isn't actually a dragon, is very interesting to me. Ideally, it comes with something at least vaguely analogous to Arkhosia (the ancient, long-fallen dragonborn kingdom from the 4e "Points of Light" setting), e.g., a kingdom that wasn't perfect but was generally pretty good, but which fell to internal corruption and external violence, so its descendants carry on its legacy and culture even if the original is little more than dust--because books are the memory that does not die.

Going the other direction in history, dinosaurs can be part of D&D as well.

The futuristic parts of my setting come, ironically, from its very distant past when ancient Hobgoblins did have space travel and artificial satellites and high-grade science and cryo-pods etc. etc., that was then mostly lost for an extremely long time other than a few random bits turning up now and then.

Sure, dinosaur stuff has been in D&D forever. Again I don't see how this undermines my point: original D&D was not persnickety about what was allowed in and what was excluded. It was open to a wide variety of things, time travel and space aliens and psionic squid-men and all sorts of other things besides. To assert "tradition" as the reason why X thing should or shouldn't be included is itself the most untraditional thing one could do!

But once a certain period of time had passed...for some reason, the gates were locked tight. Nothing more could be allowed in. Even though "do whatever seems cool" was very clearly the watchword before that, after that point, zealously, jealously guarding that gate to make sure nothing somehow "wrong" leaked in was the norm.

I just don't understand how people square that spirit of openness--one of D&D's truly great qualities!--with the harshly closed nature of their current behavior. Everything up to some nebulous time is good; everything after it is forbidden forever. Had someone suggested dragonborn to Gygax and been included, no doubt you'd be defending them just as vociferously as any other traditional part, solely because it is traditional, when those traditions only came into existence because of people openly and intentionally defying tradition!