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

[Older Beholder]

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 don't think it's just 1's and 20's.
I agree with John in the post above, you can narrate any roll.
You might narrate the scene if a player only just makes a successful skill check, as an example:

Athletics check DC 15 to jump across a pit:

Player rolls a 16
You leap across the pit and just make it, landing right on the edge. Your heart pounds a as few rocks disturbed by your landing fall into the chasm behind you.

Player rolls a 15
You leap across the pit, just reaching the other side. You lose your footing as you stretch out to almost a dive to make it. You are now prone until the next round.

Player rolls a 14
You leap across the pit, you think you're about to fall short but you slam into the other side of the chasm, you take a point of damage but manage to hold on. Make another athletics check to pull yourself up.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think it's just 1's and 20's.
I agree with John in the post above, you can narrate any roll.
You might narrate the scene if a player only just makes a successful skill check, as an example:

Athletics check DC 15 to jump across a pit:

Player rolls a 16
You leap across the pit and just make it, landing right on the edge. Your heart pounds a as few rocks disturbed by your landing fall into the chasm behind you.

Player rolls a 15
You leap across the pit, just reaching the other side. You lose your footing as you stretch out to almost a dive to make it. You are now prone until the next round.

Player rolls a 14
You leap across the pit, you think you're about to fall short but you slam into the other side of the chasm, you take a point of damage but manage to hold on. Make another athletics check to pull yourself up.

"Narration" is not what "narrative" means in this context.

 

[John R Davis]

Hmn ok
Yes, a bit because rolling a 1 sometimes means something in 5th ed, and a 20 sometimes means something a little bit more in 5th ed

Loads other games where a big roll / small rolls have a bigger narrative effect, mechanical effect and psychological effects when you stare at your dice in despair due to their treachery.

I think that answers the OP question.

 

[Reynard]

Hmn ok
Yes, a bit because rolling a 1 sometimes means something in 5th ed, and a 20 sometimes means something a little bit more in 5th ed

Loads other games where a big roll / small rolls have a bigger narrative effect, mechanical effect and psychological effects when you stare at your dice in despair due to their treachery.

I think that answers the OP question.

Well, the question was do YOU treat 1s and 20s as "narrative" results by giving them more weight on events in the fiction than the rules call for?

 

[Older Beholder]

Well, the question was do YOU treat 1s and 20s as "narrative" results by giving them more weight on events in the fiction than the rules call for?

Yeah, I do for the most part, but not always. Like, sometimes a 1 is a miss or a 20 is a success.
It depends on the situation, it’s a ruling, not a rule.

 

[Emerikol]

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"?

Maybe I'm missing something but as DM, I've typically narrated the outcome of a 20 or 1. So if someone rolls a 20 that results in a kill, I might describe the fighters sword decapitating the enemy creature. On a 1, I might say something as simple as the creature kicks your sword out of your hand. The player rolling looks to me to describe the outcome.

Again that may just be my playstyle but I wouldn't think of it being narrative in the way I'm describing it.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe I'm missing something but as DM, I've typically narrated the outcome of a 20 or 1. So if someone rolls a 20 that results in a kill, I might describe the fighters sword decapitating the enemy creature. On a 1, I might say something as simple as the creature kicks your sword out of your hand. The player rolling looks to me to describe the outcome.

Again that may just be my playstyle but I wouldn't think of it being narrative in the way I'm describing it.

Right. "Narrating" is not "narrative" in a mechanical sense. I am referring to the tendency for folks to give extra in-fiction weight to 1s and 20s. So, if a PC rolls a 1 on a a Persuasion attempt, the GM decides that the baron is offended and orders the guards to arrest the PC(s) -- importantly, when that was NOT the "normal" outcome of failing the roll. Like that.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Right. "Narrating" is not "narrative" in a mechanical sense. I am referring to the tendency for folks to give extra in-fiction weight to 1s and 20s. So, if a PC rolls a 1 on a a Persuasion attempt, the GM decides that the baron is offended and orders the guards to arrest the PC(s) -- importantly, when that was NOT the "normal" outcome of failing the roll. Like that.

It's interesting how that's the standard approach in some systems. I think it would be fairly adaptable even to D&D though it would take some adjustments. For example, in Lancer (I keep bringing that system up, but it's so appropriate for this thread) you normally have three different results: Ineffective, Effective and Very Effective.

Depending on what you roll on a check and what has been established, the outcome isn't necessarily only restricted to success or failure of the particular thing you're trying to do. For example: an Ineffective attempt at picking a lock can mean it just takes more time than expected. A Very Effective attempt it might mean you do it very quickly instead.

 

[Bae'zel]

I don't mind if things go terribly wrong on a result of 1 as long as it isn't framed as "LOL your character messed up, they look ridiculous and all of the nearby PCs and NPCs KNOW that it was YOUR fault that naughty word has hit the fan".

When a common, reasonable task's resolution ends in tone deaf slapstick-tragedy or in-game character reputations ruined, I lose respect for the DM's skills.

 

[Emerikol]

Right. "Narrating" is not "narrative" in a mechanical sense. I am referring to the tendency for folks to give extra in-fiction weight to 1s and 20s. So, if a PC rolls a 1 on a a Persuasion attempt, the GM decides that the baron is offended and orders the guards to arrest the PC(s) -- importantly, when that was NOT the "normal" outcome of failing the roll. Like that.

I get what you are staying. I would have thought that a natural 1 or natural 20 has meant something extra in most of D&D's history. Maybe not in the very earliest days.