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

[CleverNickName]

Plus, I'm gonna be honest here -- at a certain point for certain characters, they should skill out of having to roll.
...
And I cannot disagree more with the idea of combat as a thing to avoid. IMO, it should be the big, fun setpiece. I absolutely reject the idea of combat as the last resort.

We have polar opposite playstyles. I think that you and I would be very bored at each other's tables.

 

[Celebrim]

Specifically, uncertainty in potential results. Swinginess. Random happenings because the dice get a mind of their own. That sort of thing.

Agreed. The finale of the pilot of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and it's discussion of what makes baseball entertaining to humans is very relevant here.

I have played and like some "story" games, but one thing many of them lack is uncertainty. Their mechanics tend to favor participants being able to say things that become true in the fiction (even if they don't call it that).

I think that "story" and "indy" games are too broad of a category to lump them all together like that. There are some that aren't swingy enough and there are some that are too swingy.

What to me is more interesting is the actual metagame that is created around the players trying to overcome the swinginess and achieve the desired result of their play. That is to say, given that the game involves a certain amount of luck, and given that we assume that while the player accepts the possibility of failure, they don't want to fail and are so motivated to minimize the chance of failure, what gameplay does the game provide for that engages with that play (whatever it's aesthetic motivation, whether self-expression, desire for a satisfying narrative climax, or challenge).

Trad games to me provide for at least the possibility of social, functional metaplay around trying to achieve success. For example, Gygaxian gaming involves "skilled play" of a tactical variety where in game choices offer a chance to mitigate against the luck of the die.

But to me most story games don't provide for social functional metagame around trying to achieve success. This may or may not be deliberate, but the lack of provision for that is often dysfunctional in practice and often creates a game which plays very differently than the designer's apparent intention. For example, in trad gaming we can be aware of the DM playing favorites and adjudicating two different player's propositions differently, favoring one player's propositions for out of game reasons. Or we may be aware of a player browbeating and wheedling a DM into giving them what they want, up to the level of bullying a DM into giving them the resolution that they demand simply to keep the game going. We typically see these as examples of anti-social and dysfunctional play.

But in practice with story games, the mechanics are often basically inviting these processes of play to be the actual processes of play. The actual odds of something succeeding are almost entirely dependent on convincing the GM that they should happen and only by convincing the GM that it should happen can you improve your chances of success and mitigate randomness. While that is true to some extent of most games (as practical matter, the GM always sets the DC), story games often have such vague guidelines and simplified mechanics that metaphorically batting your eyelashes at the GM is the only way to mitigate against randomness.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Of course. Why else would they even exist in the game?

If you're arguing that traps, locks, stealth, etc. shouldn't be risky, that's fine...but we're no longer talking about different rules systems. We're talking about different play styles and storytelling.

Guards and normal people locks? Set dressing.

Guardian beasts, giant burning men made of diamond sent to protect the Vault of Plotulus the Eventful and the puzzle door locks that stand behind them? Then they have a purpose.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We have polar opposite playstyles. I think that you and I would be very bored at each other's tables.

Very much, yes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Agreed. The finale of the pilot of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and it's discussion of what makes baseball entertaining to humans is very relevant here.

Beer and steroids?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed. The finale of the pilot of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and it's discussion of what makes baseball entertaining to humans is very relevant here.



I think that "story" and "indy" games are too broad of a category to lump them all together like that. There are some that aren't swingy enough and there are some that are too swingy.

What to me is more interesting is the actual metagame that is created around the players trying to overcome the swinginess and achieve the desired result of their play. That is to say, given that the game involves a certain amount of luck, and given that we assume that while the player accepts the possibility of failure, they don't want to fail and are so motivated to minimize the chance of failure, what gameplay does the game provide for that engages with that play (whatever it's aesthetic motivation, whether self-expression, desire for a satisfying narrative climax, or challenge).

Trad games to me provide for at least the possibility of social, functional metaplay around trying to achieve success. For example, Gygaxian gaming involves "skilled play" of a tactical variety where in game choices offer a chance to mitigate against the luck of the die.

But to me most story games don't provide for social functional metagame around trying to achieve success. This may or may not be deliberate, but the lack of provision for that is often dysfunctional in practice and often creates a game which plays very differently than the designer's apparent intention. For example, in trad gaming we can be aware of the DM playing favorites and adjudicating two different player's propositions differently, favoring one player's propositions for out of game reasons. Or we may be aware of a player browbeating and wheedling a DM into giving them what they want, up to the level of bullying a DM into giving them the resolution that they demand simply to keep the game going. We typically see these as examples of anti-social and dysfunctional play.

But in practice with story games, the mechanics are often basically inviting these processes of play to be the actual processes of play. The actual odds of something succeeding are almost entirely dependent on convincing the GM that they should happen and only by convincing the GM that it should happen can you improve your chances of success and mitigate randomness. While that is true to some extent of most games (as practical matter, the GM always sets the DC), story games often have such vague guidelines and simplified mechanics that metaphorically batting your eyelashes at the GM is the only way to mitigate against randomness.

I'm not sure I agree with this critique, though I won't argue with you on the diversity of different systems, so it's probably impossible to make absolute statements.

Think about DW, there's not really a 'DC', the players say what their PCs do. The GM technically decides if it's a move or not, and which one, but the table decides any dispute. There's not really a playing the GM here! Usually the GM response is pretty obvious and the rules actually constrain the GM a lot!

Most of what follows from a move is a mix of player, GM, and dice. It's plenty random in a sense and uncertain, but it will all follow a through line. DW mechanics are straightforward but NOT simplistic!

 

[FrozenNorth]

In Pathfinder, it wasn't uncommon for mid-level rogues to have incredibly high bonuses to a dozen different skills. At that point, any guard, lock, or trap is irrelevant according to the DCs listed in the core rules. At high levels, to have any risk at all the DM has to artificially increase the DCs to absurd levels, just to make things challenging for the party's rogue (and instantly deadly or impossible to everyone else in the world).

It's not great.

To build on this, those challenges are basically non-existent for rogues…BUT they often remain virtually impossible for the non-rogue characters.

Fine for pocking locks (where success for a single player is success for the whole party), less so in cases where you want to challenge the whole party.

 

[Pedantic]

Guards and normal people locks? Set dressing.

Guardian beasts, giant burning men made of diamond sent to protect the Vault of Plotulus the Eventful and the puzzle door locks that stand behind them? Then they have a purpose.

I think you have to be careful here too, or you're just talking about pallet swapping problems. Locks are still probably everywhere, because most people aren't 15th level Rogues and they serve some purpose against people who aren't. Level progression indicates a change in the type of problems players are faced with and the scale on which they're acting.

My games tended to get more political at higher levels historically.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed. The finale of the pilot of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and it's discussion of what makes baseball entertaining to humans is very relevant here.



I think that "story" and "indy" games are too broad of a category to lump them all together like that. There are some that aren't swingy enough and there are some that are too swingy.

What to me is more interesting is the actual metagame that is created around the players trying to overcome the swinginess and achieve the desired result of their play. That is to say, given that the game involves a certain amount of luck, and given that we assume that while the player accepts the possibility of failure, they don't want to fail and are so motivated to minimize the chance of failure, what gameplay does the game provide for that engages with that play (whatever it's aesthetic motivation, whether self-expression, desire for a satisfying narrative climax, or challenge).

Trad games to me provide for at least the possibility of social, functional metaplay around trying to achieve success. For example, Gygaxian gaming involves "skilled play" of a tactical variety where in game choices offer a chance to mitigate against the luck of the die.

But to me most story games don't provide for social functional metagame around trying to achieve success. This may or may not be deliberate, but the lack of provision for that is often dysfunctional in practice and often creates a game which plays very differently than the designer's apparent intention. For example, in trad gaming we can be aware of the DM playing favorites and adjudicating two different player's propositions differently, favoring one player's propositions for out of game reasons. Or we may be aware of a player browbeating and wheedling a DM into giving them what they want, up to the level of bullying a DM into giving them the resolution that they demand simply to keep the game going. We typically see these as examples of anti-social and dysfunctional play.

But in practice with story games, the mechanics are often basically inviting these processes of play to be the actual processes of play. The actual odds of something succeeding are almost entirely dependent on convincing the GM that they should happen and only by convincing the GM that it should happen can you improve your chances of success and mitigate randomness. While that is true to some extent of most games (as practical matter, the GM always sets the DC), story games often have such vague guidelines and simplified mechanics that metaphorically batting your eyelashes at the GM is the only way to mitigate against randomness.

I'm not sure I agree with this critique, though I won't argue with you on the diversity of different systems, so it's probably impossible to make absolute statements.

Think about DW, there's not really a 'DC', the players say what their PCs do. The GM technically decides if it's a move or not, and which one, but the table decides any dispute. There's not really a playing the GM here! Usually the GM response is pretty obvious and the rules actually constrain the GM a lot!

Most of what follows from a move is a mix of player, GM, and dice. It's plenty random in a sense and uncertain, but it will all follow a through line. DW mechanics are straightforward but NOT simplistic

 

[Lanefan]

A long time ago...

During the design of Star Wars Saga, there was an article about the failure of the wound/vitality system previous Star Wars d20 had used. A quick recap: vitality worked like HP, and wound was an extra pool equal to your Con score. Vitality healed quickly, wound needed medical treatment and you were fatigued if you had wound damage. The important thing though was that critical hits didn't multiply damage, they bypassed vitality and went straight to wound. That, coupled with blasters that did 3d8 damage and lightsabers that did between 2d8 and 6d8 damage on a hit meant most wound strikes were lethal. Effectively speaking, most fights came down to who rolls a crit first.

The article mentioned this phenomenon, stating that PCs often were the most negatively affected by this. A GM might have a few NPCs or villains die to crit, but PCs were far and above more likely, and the likelihood increased with level as damaged and crit range increased. They figured they in a 1-20 campaign 75% of all PCs would die to crit. And that high lethality was at odds with the Star Wars tone, or at least the tone of the movies. A movie series known for swashbuckling action, epic duels and character drama was not a fit for a system of that kind of one-hit kills.

I bring all this up because it highlights that PCs overbear the brunt of randomness. A DM has less attachments to a random monster or npc than a player has to their PCs (typically). A 1 hit kill is fine to despatch a mook or random encounter, but felt anti-climatic to take out boss monsters and really felt bad when your PC went down to a chump hit on a d20 10+ levels of play.

Worth noting perhaps that this particular example of randomness only has negative outcomes; meaning that indeed if the PCs are more often affected the net result will be a negative for them.

But not all randomness has to result in a net negative. I have a wild magic surge table that has results beneficial, baneful, and neutral, mostly fairly minor but some go to extremes in all directions...and the players just love magic surges!

Same goes for the Deck of Many Things - the results aren't all negative, the players love them, and I-as-DM am happy to chuck one out there now and then...which might explain why Deck-generated keeps have been sprouting like mushrooms across my setting: I can shuffle the cards until the colour wears off and sure as shootin' somebody's still gonna pull that damn Keep card!

The net-negative randomness of fumbles is IMO balanced off by the net-positive randomness of criticals.

Again, there might have been games where this play style was important, but it certainly wasn't Star Wars. The fact that as you progressed in level, your character dying to a crit increased (due to higher damage and a longer career of being attacked) is a good example of when randomness gets in the way of good play.

Star Wars d20 was on to a really good idea with its VP-WP hit point system. They just didn't use it right, and allowed for too many means of bypassing VP.

 

[Remathilis]

Worth noting perhaps that this particular example of randomness only has negative outcomes; meaning that indeed if the PCs are more often affected the net result will be a negative for them.

But not all randomness has to result in a net negative. I have a wild magic surge table that has results beneficial, baneful, and neutral, mostly fairly minor but some go to extremes in all directions...and the players just love magic surges!

Same goes for the Deck of Many Things - the results aren't all negative, the players love them, and I-as-DM am happy to chuck one out there now and then...which might explain why Deck-generated keeps have been sprouting like mushrooms across my setting: I can shuffle the cards until the colour wears off and sure as shootin' somebody's still gonna pull that damn Keep card!

The net-negative randomness of fumbles is IMO balanced off by the net-positive randomness of criticals.

Star Wars d20 was on to a really good idea with its VP-WP hit point system. They just didn't use it right, and allowed for too many means of bypassing VP.

While arguably a PC's advantage in said system is the ability to one shot their enemies, I find that a rather thin one as well. I find one shoting a major encounter to be anticlimactic; it might be cool in the moment, but one shot mechanics (be it wp crits, save or die, or similar) rarely lead to satisfying results.

I feel a similar way about fumbles. D&D has never had a proper fumble mechanic, and most DM-made ones end up unduly harsh. The trade off for weapon breakage, slip and falls, and other things like that is potentially double damage crits. And if the crit system allows more than that (like grievous wounds, loss of limbs or death) your back to the wound problem above.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Specifically, uncertainty in potential results. Swinginess. Random happenings because the dice get a mind of their own. That sort of thing.

I have played and like some "story" games, but one thing many of them lack is uncertainty. Their mechanics tend to favor participants being able to say things that become true in the fiction (even if they don't call it that).

I prefer when participants in D&D (and similar "trad" games) say what they would like to be the case, and then the dice decide how that turns out. That goes for the GM, too, btw -- the GM being subject to the same uncertainty is equally important in creating a truly surprising and novel experience.

This isn't to say that no participants should have certain choices. I think players should get to design their characters without having to deal with dice, and GMs should be able to build the initial conditions of play (the "situations") with as much or as little random information as they desire. But once play starts, I say roll those bones in the open and stick by what they say, whether it's a random encounter with an ancient wyrm (don't forget to roll reaction!) or the BBEG gets one shotted by the torch bearer.

I love this specifically paired with the idea that you don't roll if you don't have a question that needs answering.

Give me surprise, give me novelty. Don't give me "fail forward," give me "fail completely and come up with another plan or go do something else, possibly with some consequences."

The caveat is only to let me invoke randomness when I need to answer a question. Can you make the jump? Well, if you can fly, I don't need to roll. Do you kill the goblin? Well, if you've snuck up behind it and it hasn't noticed you and you've got a poisoned dagger, I guess you do, why am I rolling attacks?

But when I ask the dice what's going to happen, I want "something nobody expected" to be part of the possible result space.

 

[overgeeked]

I love this specifically paired with the idea that you don't roll if you don't have a question that needs answering.

Give me surprise, give me novelty. Don't give me "fail forward," give me "fail completely and come up with another plan or go do something else, possibly with some consequences."

The caveat is only to let me invoke randomness when I need to answer a question. Can you make the jump? Well, if you can fly, I don't need to roll. Do you kill the goblin? Well, if you've snuck up behind it and it hasn't noticed you and you've got a poisoned dagger, I guess you do, why am I rolling attacks?

But when I ask the dice what's going to happen, I want "something nobody expected" to be part of the possible result space.

Exactly. That’s why I love DCC. Especially the magic system. Roll to see how your version of burning hands is different than everyone else’s. Roll to see if your spell corrupts you, works normally, or has a wild surge of power. Roll to see if this time your burning hands is a candle or a flamethrower or a blast of fire 40’ out in all directions. You’re channeling chaos and it feels like it.

 

[Remathilis]

I love this specifically paired with the idea that you don't roll if you don't have a question that needs answering..

This should be in size 72 font in the first page of every RPG book. But it needs two corollaries:

1. Does randomness add to the scene or destroy it?
2. Is the range of potential options a reasonable variance?

The first is basically a "read the room" moment: would a result (specifically a negative result) increase the mood (tension, drama, fear, happiness, sadness) or will it ruin it. Sometimes tone whiplash is ok, but you must be careful about that because it can also lead to players 'tuning out" from the emotion of the scene. Suspension of disbelief, once lost, is gone forever.

The second one is basically "don't let the dice override common sense". You can't roll a persuasion check high enough to have the king abdicate his throne. Yes, even on a nat 20. Likewise, even though people fall off ladders in the real world every day, rolling climb checks on every 10' ladder is annoying. The dice are your tools, not your master.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Here's a fight we know ahead of time we're going to win and we know ahead of time it will take between 7-8 rounds to get through it, but let's pretend like that's somehow fun instead of a boring slog. Snooze.

Mileage varies. As a DM this is often a chore. As a player, I like these sorts of encounters. I don't have to 'pretend' they're fun; they actually are fun.

Of course a monotonous diet of this sort of encounter and nothing else would be boring and undesirable - but a monotonous diet of any one sort of encounter and nothing else would be boring and undesirable.

 

[overgeeked]

Mileage varies. As a DM this is often a chore. As a player, I like these sorts of encounters. I don't have to 'pretend' they're fun; they actually are fun.

I cannot stand D&D combat that exists as a resource drain but not an actual threat. If there’s nothing but a few spells or hit points on the line that will just regenerate after a nap. Just roll a few dice and tell me how many spells and hit points I’m down until sleeping. Don’t make me waste an hour or more rolling dozens of times when there’s no real stakes. No stakes, no tension. No tension, no excitement. No excitement, no point.

Of course a monotonous diet of this sort of encounter and nothing else would be boring and undesirable - but a monotonous diet of any one sort of encounter and nothing else would be boring and undesirable.

Predictability is monotonous, boring, and undesirable.

 

[Celebrim]

Think about DW, there's not really a 'DC', the players say what their PCs do. The GM technically decides if it's a move or not, and which one, but the table decides any dispute. There's not really a playing the GM here! Usually the GM response is pretty obvious and the rules actually constrain the GM a lot!

Yes, but it's also not clear to be that Dungeon World is any sort of "story game".

I haven't played Dungeon World but I do know the rules. More importantly, I know that is straight up trying to be a replacement for the D20 based system of historic D&D with the intention of being lighter and cleaner in its implementation.

Ultimately the rules I think tell me very little of how the game is played. It's highly likely that different tables playing DW are playing very different games. But I assert here the applicability of Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs which tells us: "How you think about a game, and how you prepare to play a game, has a bigger impact on how you play a game than the rules." I've often said half-jokingly that this means that any game that a DM prepares like he would D&D and which the participants think of the way they would D&D is in fact going to be D&D regardless of the rules set. And here we have a game which is straight up D&D emulation just with a different engine.

And my suspicion is that for most tables it's going to play just like D&D with less fiddly bits and maybe less set up required for GMs that find themselves getting bogged down in mechanical setup with standard D&D.

And if that is the case then it's quite possible to adjudicate DW like you are adjudicating 1e AD&D and in that case standard Gygaxian concepts of "skilled play" are going to apply, and the only difference is going to be things like the mechanics of making a saving throw that disguise that conceptually you are just making a saving throw.

If you look at the mechanical impact of story and character on DW it's really lightweight. It's strongest story mechanics are equivalent of giving story rewards to players for completing goals, with the wrinkle (which wouldn't be foreign to all D&D tables) of letting the players have a role in defining those goals.

Compare with FATE Core where story has a larger potential impact on the chance of success than the move or the ability and where the mechanics are not straightforward but are simplistic.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In the spirit of randomness, I decided to base my opinion of the subject via a dice roll and random table...

1- Uncertainly is terrible
2- Uncertianly is okay, but there's too much of it
3- I'm neutral
4- Uncertainly can be useful in the right context
5- Uncertainly is okay
6- Uncertainly is great!

I rolled a 4! So there are times when uncertainly is good, and times where it's bad. It can depend on personal taste too!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the spirit of randomness, I decided to base my opinion of the subject via a dice roll and random table...

1- Uncertainly is terrible
2- Uncertianly is okay, but there's too much of it
3- I'm neutral
4- Uncertainly can be useful in the right context
5- Uncertainly is okay
6- Uncertainly is great!

I rolled a 4! So there are times when uncertainly is good, and times where it's bad. It can depend on personal taste too!

Did you fudge the roll?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but it's also not clear to be that Dungeon World is any sort of "story game".

I haven't played Dungeon World but I do know the rules. More importantly, I know that is straight up trying to be a replacement for the D20 based system of historic D&D with the intention of being lighter and cleaner in its implementation.

We will have to disagree there. I would say that DW is meant to be in the D&D genre, so they share implications of fictional position, and a DW game narrative might sound like it 'could happen' in , say B/X. The process of play and agenda are completely different however.

Ultimately the rules I think tell me very little of how the game is played. It's highly likely that different tables playing DW are playing very different games. But I assert here the applicability of Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs which tells us: "How you think about a game, and how you prepare to play a game, has a bigger impact on how you play a game than the rules." I've often said half-jokingly that this means that any game that a DM prepares like he would D&D and which the participants think of the way they would D&D is in fact going to be D&D regardless of the rules set. And here we have a game which is straight up D&D emulation just with a different engine.

You SAY you are familiar with the rules, but I cannot reconcile it with my actual understanding of DW. It is really nothing like D&D...

And my suspicion is that for most tables it's going to play just like D&D with less fiddly bits and maybe less set up required for GMs that find themselves getting bogged down in mechanical setup with standard D&D.

And if that is the case then it's quite possible to adjudicate DW like you are adjudicating 1e AD&D and in that case standard Gygaxian concepts of "skilled play" are going to apply, and the only difference is going to be things like the mechanics of making a saving throw that disguise that conceptually you are just making a saving throw.

Again I simply cannot reconcile this with the actual facts ...

If you look at the mechanical impact of story and character on DW it's really lightweight. It's strongest story mechanics are equivalent of giving story rewards to players for completing goals, with the wrinkle (which wouldn't be foreign to all D&D tables) of letting the players have a role in defining those goals.

The goals and focus of play should entirely stem from player choices, the answers they give to questions etc. all pushed through the mill of moves and counter moves feeding back into XP, bonds, and new choices. This may seem light weight in terms of being a pretty simple architecture but it is a very pervasive and focused thing!

Compare with FATE Core where story has a larger potential impact on the chance of success than the move or the ability and where the mechanics are not straightforward but are simplistic.

You gotta actually play. FATE can definitely do certain things well, but it is no more sophisticated than PbtAs.