D&D 5E Adding a "narrative mechanic" to 5E

[Fanaelialae]

I'd be cautious about even using a d6 for this - by that system you'd have a complication showing up on average every two rolls (2/3 chance of no comp. times 2/3 = 4/9).

I would suggest starting with 1 and 20 on a d20 having external effects on non-attack rolls and seeing if that's enough to cause the desired result.

As I see it, if it's that rare why have it at all? The odds of a bad complication are only 1 in 6, while a good "complication" are also 1 in 6. These wouldn't affect the success or failure of the roll, but rather would simply add a little embellishment to the scene.

Perhaps a d6 is a bit much (1 in 3 rolls will have something extra happen) but I don't think I'd go higher than a d10. I think the point of using such a system is that you want these little additions to happen with some frequency. If you use a d20, not only do you have to distinguish it somehow from the actual check (which may also have advantage), but it's also going to be fairly infrequent. Having the player roll an extra die for something that happens quite rarely seems like adding more complexity than what you'll gain from it. IMO, of course.

 

[jayoungr]

Perhaps a d6 is a bit much (1 in 3 rolls will have something extra happen) but I don't think I'd go higher than a d10.

Not even as an excuse to give the under-utilized D12 some love? The One Ring uses a D12 for a similar mechanic.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'd be cautious about even using a d6 for this - by that system you'd have a complication showing up on average every two rolls

To be fair however, that’s about the probability of advantage/threats to show-up on a roll in the source material cited in the OP.

 

[Pauln6]

Narrative Authority can be a great way of collaborative storytelling. I've played games like Other Worlds and Thousand Suns that allow it when linked to key words (in the case of Other Worlds the characters are made up entirely from key words.

You could just use inspiration linked to the characters personality traits and background, or give each player one extra key word/phrase equal to their proficiency bonus. Then once per session, if they have inspiration they can tweak the narrative in ways related to any of those.

 

[Rhenny]

As I see it, if it's that rare why have it at all? The odds of a bad complication are only 1 in 6, while a good "complication" are also 1 in 6. These wouldn't affect the success or failure of the roll, but rather would simply add a little embellishment to the scene.

Perhaps a d6 is a bit much (1 in 3 rolls will have something extra happen) but I don't think I'd go higher than a d10. I think the point of using such a system is that you want these little additions to happen with some frequency. If you use a d20, not only do you have to distinguish it somehow from the actual check (which may also have advantage), but it's also going to be fairly infrequent. Having the player roll an extra die for something that happens quite rarely seems like adding more complexity than what you'll gain from it. IMO, of course.

The wild die in West End Games’ Star Wars was a d6, 1 being a Complication, and it was rolled inside a dice pool. I found those odds too high. Maybe it would work better if you only roll the d6 on a failed chance, so it would never ruin a success. If a 6 is rolled, maybe it could be a success with complication.

Just a thought.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The wild die in West End Games’ Star Wars was a d6, 1 being a Complication, and it was rolled inside a dice pool. I found those odds too high. Maybe it would work better if you only roll the d6 on a failed chance, so it would never ruin a success. If a 6 is rolled, maybe it could be a success with complication.

Just a thought.

I think the charm of a system like this is that you can have something good on a failure, or something bad on a success (as well as something good on a success, or something bad on a failure). Otherwise, you can easily just use natural 1 (crit fail) and natural 20 (crit success).

I used to be familiar with WEG SW but it's admittedly been a few years since I last looked at it, and I don't really recall the mechanic. I was thinking roughly along the lines of FFG's Star Wars games, but much simpler (a more complex version of this is basically the core mechanic of those games).

Basically, when you succeed but get a bad complication, you succeed but maybe not perfectly, or you succeed but something bad happens. When you fail but get a good complication, you still fail but maybe not completely, or you fail but something good still happens. It can't ruin a success or redeem a failure, but it can offset them a bit.