D&D General Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better

[MichaelSomething]

So I take you tried the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG? That ups the randomness to 11!

 

[overgeeked]

So I take you tried the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG? That ups the randomness to 11!

Randomness as game balance. It's utterly amazing. Wizards slowly mutating because magic is pure chaos. Such a great game.

 

[Maxperson]

All dice-rolling systems (pretty much) are there to introduce uncertainty. But swingy ones are where wild things easily happen, like the ultra-skilled warrior misses four attacks in a row, which is just not going to happen in something like Shadowrun or Exalted (even w/o powers).

Why not? You don't think another equally ultra-skilled warrior can't block, parry and dodge 4 attacks from your ultra-skilled warrior?

Warrior 1 moves in and thrusts his blade forward to skewer warrior 2 through the neck. Warrior 2 pivots slightly and the thrust passes by his neck harmlessly(miss #1). Seeing this warrior 1 quickly slashes sideways intending to slice warrior 2's neck open only to find warrior 2's shield blocking the slash upward having anticipated this move(miss #2). Warrior 1 quickly pulls his sword back for another thrust while the shield is high, but the shield again finds itself in the sword's path blocking it, causing the sword to skitter off the shield to the right(miss #3). As quick as a blur the sword whistles back under the shield to slash low at warrior 2's legs, only to be parried deftly by warrior 2's axe(miss#4).

Nothing farcical about that at all. It's actually a rather exciting combat. It's actually less realistic(more farcical) for it to be impossible like you say Shadowrun and Exalted do. It sounds like those systems make a high level combat more like DBZ where they just hit each other back and forth until one drops.

 

[Sabathius42]

I think one of us is totally lost(and not sure that it isn't me). I've been understanding @Reynard to be arguing that D&D is more random(swingy) and uncertain than all of the other games on his shelf, and then having others argue that D&D is less random(swingy) and less uncertain than other games.

It's seems, like many other threads, that we are in the territory of arguing semantics as opposed to a concept.

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

This is why I don't agree with the idea put forth by the OP.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

 

[Maxperson]

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

Yeah. I brought in the optional DMG rule that allows success with a consequence if you fail by a few points.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

I get that. I just think that the lock should be closed at least some of the time. Flat fail is often as much of fail forward as success and fail forward is. There are usually several paths forward and forward doesn't have to be through the locked door.

That's why in my game there's fail, succeed with a consequence(fail forward) and success.

 

[Reynard]

It's seems, like many other threads, that we are in the territory of arguing semantics as opposed to a concept.

Many GMs and players view 5e to be a pass/fail design. If one has to make a DC10 check to open a lock then many GMs are going to narrate a 9 as "you didn't open the lock".

In other games with a fail forward design getting a 9 result for a DC10 check will usually mean "You open the lock BUT [some drawback]".

This is why I don't agree with the idea put forth by the OP.

In 5e the lock can alter your story by branching the narrative into the pass and the fail state. In the other game scenario the lock branches the narrative into the baggage or no baggage state.

In both systems the players have their world changed by the die roll, it's just that in one system the lock is always open.

I don't view a stubborn lock as being more interesting than whatever baggage was decided as the downside of the fail forward.

5E explicitly has a fail forward or success at a cost mechanic built in.

But since it is in the DMG no one knows about it...

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. I brought in the optional DMG rule that allows success with a consequence if you fail by a few points.

It is not even really an "optional rule" in the traditional sense (like gritty long rests or whatever). It is described as one way to adjudicate die rolls, right along side pass/fail. It is one of the rules of the game.

 

[Sabathius42]

It is not even really an "optional rule" in the traditional sense (like gritty long rests or whatever). It is described as one way to adjudicate die rolls, right along side pass/fail. It is one of the rules of the game.

Still, there is at least on GM on this thread that doesn't always and perhaps never uses it. They gave example of how they narrate not-quite-there misses as more pleasant but still fail state results.

I think many GMs on this board haven't adjusted their style to incorporate modern RPG concepts like fail forward and player authoring because they just like to do things the way they always have done them.

I think fail forward is, like any tool, best used mixed with all the others. Not a one size fits all method and not an ultra rare exception either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why not? You don't think another equally ultra-skilled warrior can't block, parry and dodge 4 attacks from your ultra-skilled warrior?

LOL.

90% of the time the opponent you whiff against is anything but an "ultra-skilled warrior". The idea that it's a mirror-match has to be one of the least-D&D things I've read in years. Wild and bizarre take.

It's actually a rather exciting combat.

LOL.

These hot takes, you're going to melt Morrus' server dude! No-one thinks two Fighters missing each other with every attack is a "rather exciting combat". I don't think even you think that!

It sounds like those systems make a high level combat more like DBZ where they just hit each other back and forth until one drops.

Absolutely not, but if you've not played them, as you evidently haven't, this probably isn't the place to educate you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This farce problem is a problem with how you envision things.

Yeah me and a huge number of other people. Let's just blame everyone and pretend the mechanics are perfect lol.

As for dump stat characters rolling high, well sometimes they get lucky. A dump stat individual isn't clueless or totally unable to accomplish things, and someone with a high stat isn't perfect. That's not farcical at all.

It happens so often it is absolutely farcical. It should happen one roll in fifty at most. In reality it happens about one roll in five.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah me and a huge number of other people. Let's just blame everyone and pretend the mechanics are perfect lol.

What goes around comes around. You declaring D&D as farcical in the absolute manner you are doing is just as bad. You're basically telling me that I can't tell what is or is not farcical, and that my game D&D game must be farcical if I play according to the rules. Spoiler, my game is not farcical because I don't use Three Stooges combat where everyone just whiffs into the air when they miss.

It happens so often it is absolutely farcical. It should happen one roll in fifty at most. In reality it happens about one roll in five.

No. That's flat out wrong. The average DC is 15. That's a moderate check. Someone with a dump stat has a -1 to the roll and no proficiency. People very rarely pick proficiency for skills where the stat has a penalty. I'll go low level and use a 16 and proficiency for the skilled individual.

So to hit that DC of 15, the dump stat fellow has to roll a 16+ He will make it 25% of the time. The skilled fellow is going to make that roll on a 10 or higher. He succeeds 55% of the time. The dump stat guy isn't going to be succeeding while the skilled guy is failing 20% of the time. It's just not going to happen. And the difference becomes even more pronounced if the DC is 20 or at higher levels when the skilled guy will have more proficiency and maybe higher stats.

 

[Maxperson]

90% of the time the opponent you whiff against is anything but an "ultra-skilled warrior". The idea that it's a mirror-match has to be one of the least-D&D things I've read in years. Wild and bizarre take.

Sure. The rest of the time it's a highly skilled/powerful monster. Same difference. High level PCs don't run around fighting putzes.

 

[Lanefan]

A 5'2 person can't play in the NBA, so he won't try. It's not like they are going to show up on draft day and find out they can't play after being dunked on by everyone. Realistically, all those quirky "low score" characters (the ones on the low end of the bell curve) would realize adventuring requires gifts beyond them and likewise take up a mundane profession. Ergo, most of those "low roll" PCs should retire upon creation unless they are narcissists or non compos mentis.

This is exactly why, if the dice come up with a crap set of rolls that fail to meet some basic thresholds*, I allow the player the option to chuck it and start over: it only makes sense that character just isn't cut out for adventuring If the player chooses to keep it, however, that's binding.

* - if no single roll is higher than 13 and-or the average of the six rolls is below 10.0 you can try again.

 

[Lanefan]

Most D&D assumes that adventurer is a career. Certainly, you can write a story where you inherit an evil artifact from your uncle and get thrust into adventuring, but most PCs, by the virtue of being in a class, have training that assumes a certain level of competency and thus aptitude.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean everyone with that training will take up adventuring, nor does it mean the PCs are the only ones in the setting who have such training.

A big temple simewhere might graduate six acolytes at a Summer Solstice ceremony and invest each as a true Cleric (in game terms, they've just got their 1st level). Of those, one might decide to try adventuring, one might become an itinerant priestess wandering the countryside, one might move to a village and set up a worship site there, while the other three remain at the temple as stay-at-home Clerics.

Thus, you're right back to adventurers being the ones among their peers who happened to show up.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh man do I love random generators. Especially Excel generators. Press a button and it spits out 100 random NPCs. Press a button and it spits out 100 random hexes. Pure unadulterated yum.

I have one that generates random magic items; I use it every time I'm asked what's available to purchase in [whaever town or city the PCs just got to], as what's available at any given time is, of course, usually highly unpredictable.

I'll tweak the results if there's reason to e.g. if there's a war going on then there probably won't be many magic weapons or armours available, that sort of thing.

 

[Lanefan]

You'll pop in the chat box "what is the weather?" And it will generate a weather cycle based on the exact location of the world, the date and time of year, historical weather patterns, variations based on other events (a local volcano erupting) and climate models pulled from real world metrology. Then, it keeps that knowledge in it's database and references it the next time the question is asked.

I want one, if only for this very purpose.

 

[overgeeked]

I want one, if only for this very purpose.

You should check out Hex Flower if you haven't already. It's a random chart with a "memory". Really neat idea.

Hex Power Flower

If you like random tables, then you might like this Hex Flower Game Engine idea. Hex Flowers are different to other kinds of random tables because they have an inbuilt ‘memory’, that is…

goblinshenchman.wordpress.com

 

[Lanefan]

Still, there is at least on GM on this thread that doesn't always and perhaps never uses it. They gave example of how they narrate not-quite-there misses as more pleasant but still fail state results.

That would be me, probably; and I do this because in my eyes a fail is a fail. You can't succeed on a fail.

If I want to narrate success with complications I'm going to do it on a roll that marginally succeeds: the roll has set the game state as "success" but I get to narrate that success however I like, and I'll use the roll as a general guideline for said narration.

I think many GMs on this board haven't adjusted their style to incorporate modern RPG concepts like fail forward and player authoring because they just like to do things the way they always have done them.

I think fail forward is, like any tool, best used mixed with all the others. Not a one size fits all method and not an ultra rare exception either.

My issue with fail-forward is that it yet again makes things easier on the players/PCs (and modern D&D already does far too much of this!) by often turning what would have been a hard fail into, ultimately, a success. Picking a lock: fail means the door is still locked. Fail-forward often means the door is opened but there's a complication e.g. a monster on the other side. That the door ends up opened at all, however, dishonours the "fail" die roll as it has turned that failure into a success.

Put another way, in my view success-with-complications has to start with a "success" roll on the die.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah me and a huge number of other people. Let's just blame everyone and pretend the mechanics are perfect lol.

It happens so often it is absolutely farcical. It should happen one roll in fifty at most. In reality it happens about one roll in five.

I suspect you're looking for, or expecting, a much steeper power curve in these things than the game provides.

A high-level character might be +50% vs a low-level character at performing some task or at hitting a foe in combat or whatever. A steeper curve (which you seem to want) would make that difference +100%; a flatter curve might make it +30%.

3e had a steep power curve. 4e had a flat one. 5e's seems also to be pretty flat, and also bounded at both ends.

 

[Maxperson]

A 5'2 person can't play in the NBA, so he won't try. It's not like they are going to show up on draft day and find out they can't play after being dunked on by everyone. Realistically, all those quirky "low score" characters (the ones on the low end of the bell curve) would realize adventuring requires gifts beyond them and likewise take up a mundane profession. Ergo, most of those "low roll" PCs should retire upon creation unless they are narcissists or non compos mentis.

Not the best example. The shortest player to ever play in the NBA was drafted in 1987 and was 5'3". Spud Webb(His NBA career ended in 1998) was 5'6" and won the dunking contest at least once. He was amazing to watch.

Sometimes low scores can be overcome with advantages in other areas.