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

[Lanefan]

You're missing the point. The reason why the baron arrested them in the example wasn't because they failed, but because they failed with a natural 1 specifically.

Exactly. They didn't just fail, they outright blew it up in their own faces (as reflected by the Nat 1 on the die); and the consequences were therefore more extreme.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay and that's nice but, there's people trying to engage in discussion -- if only we can agree on terms. Because people have posted responses and been told that what they posted has nothing to do with the OP. So obviously there's a disconnect?

My framing of Narrativism, Simulationism and Gamism was to establish terms and avoid confusion. Because TBH a group's definition of 1s and 20s could fall into any of those categories. So why not lay out all the possible terms?

The problem is the OP's use of "narrative", as far as I can tell, has little-to-nothing to do with capital-N Narrativism as espoused by game theory wonks; and is thus perhaps a poor choice of terms (though whether there's a better alternative is an open question).

The other thing that's causing some confusion, I think, is whether the "extras" on a 1 or 20 are to be narrated by the player or the DM. For my part, I think the extreme rolls give the DM more latitude to narrate but not the player unless the DM specifically passes that right over to the player(s) in each case. It's the player's role to have the character try things, it's the DM's role to narrate what comes of those attempts.

 

[soviet]

You are being pretty hostile. Not sure why.

OK, not my intent. I'll bow out.

 

[Reynard]

Exactly. They didn't just fail, they outright blew it up in their own faces (as reflected by the Nat 1 on the die); and the consequences were therefore more extreme.

Makes perfect sense to me.

And that's what makes it a narrative mechanic.

 

[Reynard]

The problem is the OP's use of "narrative", as far as I can tell, has little-to-nothing to do with capital-N Narrativism as espoused by game theory wonks; and is thus perhaps a poor choice of terms (though whether there's a better alternative is an open question).

Obfuscation. GNS is literally unimportant to this discussion and using it as a way to bypass the discussion is disingenuous.

The other thing that's causing some confusion, I think, is whether the "extras" on a 1 or 20 are to be narrated by the player or the DM. For my part, I think the extreme rolls give the DM more latitude to narrate but not the player unless the DM specifically passes that right over to the player(s) in each case. It's the player's role to have the character try things, it's the DM's role to narrate what comes of those attempts.

If the GM if constrained by the nat 1 or nat 20, or lack thereof, it is a narrative mechanic. If the GM.can do whatever they want whenever they want, then by definition the Nat 1 or Nat 20 can't be relevant.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Which versions of D&D gave extra weight to nat 1s and 20s, and which versions did not?

 

[Reynard]

Which versions of D&D gave extra weight to nat 1s and 20s, and which versions did not?

I think that 3E was the first to officially introduce an automatic miss on a 1 and hit/crit on a 20, but I could be wrong. I don't remember if it was a rule during the 2E days or if we made it up.

 

[Mannahnin]

Which versions of D&D gave extra weight to nat 1s and 20s, and which versions did not?

OD&D: No extra weight, critical hits and fumbles were house rules, third party supplements like Arduin might have them.

AD&D: Same. Although the Saving Throw rules mention that a nat 1 always fails regardless of modifiers, which can very much matter at high levels with magic items.

B/X: First D&D edition to make a nat 1 auto-miss and a nat 20 auto-hit on an attack roll. No impact noted on saves.

2E: Nat to hit 20 auto-hits, nat 1 auto-misses. Critical hits and fumbles are optional rules.

3E: First D&D edition to make critical hits official. 1s on attacks auto-miss, 20s threaten a critical, which you have to roll to confirm. 1s and 20s are nothing special on saves, but since Save DCs go up and up with higher level foes, the 1E auto-fail on a 1 rule really isn't needed. Critical success and failures on skill checks is an optional rule. I had forgotten this last being there! 3.5 DMG p92.

4E: 20s on attacks auto-hit, and if they would normally hit the AC they're critical. Critical hits are official, fumbles not present, 1s and 20s mean nothing special on a skill check. Saving throws redefined and only give specials on a Death Save of 20, if you have any healing surges left you get to spend one (healing from 0 instead of negatives) and regain consciousness.

5E: 20s to hit are crits, 1s are auto-misses, on death saves 20s restore one HP, 1s fail two death saves, on other saves and on skill checks 1s and 20s are nothing special.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Which versions of D&D gave extra weight to nat 1s and 20s, and which versions did not?

OD&D: No extra weight, critical hits and fumbles were house rules, third party supplements like Arduin might have them,

AD&D: Same. Although the Saving Throw rules mention that a nat 1 always fails regardless of modifiers.

B/X: First D&D edition to make a nat 1 auto-miss and a nat 20 auto-hit on an attack roll. No impact noted on saves.

2E: Nat to hit 20 auto-hits, nat 1 auto-misses. Critical hits and fumbles are optional rules.

3E: First D&D edition to make critical hits official. 1s on attacks auto-miss, 20s threaten a critical, which you have to roll to confirm. 1s and 20s are nothing special on saves, but since Save DCs go up and up with higher level foes, the 1E auto-fail on a 1 rule really isn't needed. Critical success and failures on skill checks is an optional rule. I had forgotten this last being there!

4E: 20s on attacks auto-hit, and if they would normally hit the AC they're critical. Critical hits are official, fumbles not present, 1s and 20s mean nothing special on a skill check. Saving throws redefined and only give specials on a Death Save of 20, if you have any healing surges left you get to spend one (healing from 0 instead of negatives) and regain consciousness.

5E: 20s to hit are crits, 1s are auto-misses, on death saves 20s restore one HP, 1s fail two death saves, on other saves and on skill checks 1s and 20s are nothing special.

^Ninja'd.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

OD&D: No extra weight, critical hits and fumbles were house rules, third party supplements like Arduin might have them.

AD&D: Same. Although the Saving Throw rules mention that a nat 1 always fails regardless of modifiers, which can very much matter at high levels with magic items.

B/X: First D&D edition to make a nat 1 auto-miss and a nat 20 auto-hit on an attack roll. No impact noted on saves.

2E: Nat to hit 20 auto-hits, nat 1 auto-misses. Critical hits and fumbles are optional rules.

3E: First D&D edition to make critical hits official. 1s on attacks auto-miss, 20s threaten a critical, which you have to roll to confirm. 1s and 20s are nothing special on saves, but since Save DCs go up and up with higher level foes, the 1E auto-fail on a 1 rule really isn't needed. Critical success and failures on skill checks is an optional rule. I had forgotten this last being there! 3.5 DMG p92.

4E: 20s on attacks auto-hit, and if they would normally hit the AC they're critical. Critical hits are official, fumbles not present, 1s and 20s mean nothing special on a skill check. Saving throws redefined and only give specials on a Death Save of 20, if you have any healing surges left you get to spend one (healing from 0 instead of negatives) and regain consciousness.

5E: 20s to hit are crits, 1s are auto-misses, on death saves 20s restore one HP, 1s fail two death saves, on other saves and on skill checks 1s and 20s are nothing special.

Thanks. So it has been around for longer than I thought.