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

[Reynard]

Barring infirmity it won't, no. I have learned how to pick up and put down objects -very- well. And only drop things that are too heavy, too hot, too slippery or otherwise too something that causes me to drop it.

The great Player in the Sky isn't rolling d1,000,000,000s every time I pick up a jar of peanut butter in the hopes I don't screw up and crit fail.

Again, you don't roll to perform everyday, no pressure actions. You might bhave to make a dex check to open that jar of peanut butter if you were doing it under great stress: there's a man hiding in the pantry with a gun and you are trying to keep your kid from knowing he's there. In that case, a roll is called for because the outcome is uncertain and the results (especially a failure) could be interesting and move the scene forward. Your hands shake and your drop the jar, smashing it. There is a tense moment when your kid wonders what's going on while you think you hear the hammer pull back on the man's gun. Etc.

 

[Reynard]

There is something with the act of going from 1st level to 20th. The randomness of low levels should become less as one gains power. I have a rogue that puts everything he can into open locks to be the best. This takes the most randomness out at the cost of not increasing other things. He can still fail at high levels, but I expect him to fail less than when he was 1st level.

I want to clarify that this isn't just about success versus failure -- it is about uncertain outcomes that inform play because of their incongruity. It isn't just that you want skilled characters to fail, it is that you want something interesting and fun to emerge from the dice rolls that can surprise everyone at the table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

You've been playing the wrong story games in that case The only RPGs that are considered storygames I can think of off the top of my head that are less uncertain than D&D are Fate and a couple of diceless games and with games like Crash Pandas the carnage is part of the point.

One of my fundamental issues with most editions of D&D is that everything is measured on a pass/fail scale with only two possible outcomes, and all spells are reliably cast rather than being mysterious and variable. The volume of a fireball is measured in cubic feet in 2e ffs. The only two D&Ds with more than a very minimal amount of potential outcomes I can think of are oD&D/1e with random encounter tables and occasional cursed artifacts, and 4e with skill challenges and ritual magic being its own thing. And failing is normally just failing. Even worse, especially for 5e, success is frequently inconsequential; high hit points mean that each individual hit in combat is often inconsequential (and there aren't the tactics and positioning of 4e that mean you change the fiction in other ways).

Meanwhile if we look at two of the most popular modern-ish storygames (12 years old is actually pretty old for a storygame), Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. Both of them have as a core resolution mechanic not two but three outcomes; success, success-with-cost-or-consequences, and fail/GM's choice with a range of options. For an example of just how much more flowing and varied Apocalypse World gets than D&D here's the AW equivalent to the D&D perception skill.

READ A SITCH​

When you read a charged situation, roll [2d6]+sharp [stat]. On a hit [7+], you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1.
On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:​

• Where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• Which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• Which enemy is the biggest threat?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What’s my enemy’s true position?
• Who’s in control here?

On a miss, ask 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst.​

Far more variety, chaos, and uncertainty there - and as the GM even I might not know the answers before the question is asked.

To sum up my reaction to "uncertainty makes D&D better" is to think that it's like saying that vegetables make fast food better. If I wanted vegetables I wouldn't be going to the kebab shop. Which is why I was running Apocalypse World earlier tonight but running D&D on Saturday.

 

[TwoSix]

Absolutely.

Nah. I'm with Lanefan on this one. Having random stats teaches the players at the table to deal with situations they otherwise wouldn't. Which is a big part of the fun. Giving up that sense of control. It's all about the dice. It's a gamble. You only get so much input then you roll the dice.

People in life aren't balanced. Despite what we want to be, we start with a specific genetic makeup that we can't really change. You may want to be an NBA star, but if you're 5'2"...it's not likely. You may want to be a singer, but if you're tone deaf...it's not likely.

I think the problem I have with this discussion is the idea of "what the game should do". Random and procedural generation of characters is fun. Building a detailed character with a crunchier system is also fun. Describing a character with lightweight stats and catchy phrases is also fun. They're just different. Picking one of them as "the better way" is like having to choose a winner between ice cream, pizza, and burgers. I like to have all of them, just not usually at one meal!

 

[Lanefan]

One of my fundamental issues with most editions of D&D is that everything is measured on a pass/fail scale with only two possible outcomes, and all spells are reliably cast rather than being mysterious and variable. The volume of a fireball is measured in cubic feet in 2e ffs. The only two D&Ds with more than a very minimal amount of potential outcomes I can think of are oD&D/1e with random encounter tables and occasional cursed artifacts, and 4e with skill challenges and ritual magic being its own thing. And failing is normally just failing. Even worse, especially for 5e, success is frequently inconsequential; high hit points mean that each individual hit in combat is often inconsequential (and there aren't the tactics and positioning of 4e that mean you change the fiction in other ways).

I agree with this, in principle anyway.

However, it's not that hard a thing to fix in a lot of situations. Sure there's a few things that succeed or fail is a binary black and white thing, but in most situations the die roll can also be used to inform the degree of success or failure, with corresponding narration from the DM. For example, take the common act of picking a lock, let's say (using 5e terms) the DC is 10, and (for simplicity) we're just using the natural roll without bonuses, and there's no rerolls. My narration is going to vary based on the rolls:

2 - "That didn't go well at all. Something about that lock has you completely stumped."
8 - "Close but no cigar. Just a little brush-up next time you're at your guild and you might get ones like that."
12 - "That one almost pushed your skill to the limit, but you got it open."
19 - "Piece of cake! You could do that all day!"

So even though mechanically it's a binary pass-fail, narratively I can dress it up some to make it appear more linear.

 

[MGibster]

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

Some of my favorite moments as a player have come when my character met a sudden and unexpected demise. Hillbilly ogre armed with a hook, I'm looking at you. The G in RPG stands for game, and it just isn't a game with that element of chance in there. Not knowing what's going to happen is part of the fun!

 

[MGibster]

I will never roll a nat 1 while making a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich and accidentally stab myself through the neck with a silicon spreader because I "Missed the peanut butter jar".

I didn't always used to DM like this, but these days I won't have the players roll for something that won't matter to the narrative. Vampire the 5th edition suggests the Keeper have the PCs roll as little as possible and only for something that's important. I really, really had to remind myself during the one campaign I ran but there were a few times when I had someone roll and immediately thought, "Why the hell did I bother with that?"

 

[bloodtide]

I love uncertainty and randomness in a game.

I dread the cinematic type storytelling game: Where everyone knows what will happen and it will happen just like everyone thinks. The ending is set in stone and can not be changed.

One of the most amazing things about D&D is the games ability for anything to happen. Anything. As long as the DM and none of the players are telling a meta story. Only emergent stories are allowed. Though as it's by dice roll, the DM does have the power to simply not role the dice; and they players have the far less power of not taking a chance and/or being prepared.

I dislike modern D&D and it's bumpers. So, for context when kids go bowling they have covers, called bumpers, to cover the gutters on both side of a bowling lane. So a kid can roll a ball down the lane, have it bounce off the bumpers, and more then likely hit the pins down at the end. It mostlty stops kids from 'just having their ball go into the gutter and getting zero points'.

The Modern D&D play style is a lot like bumper bowling: no matter what the set story will happen and will have it's set ending no matter what. And this can be the DMs story, each player characters story, the group story or any combination. It's easy to see in any game when a gamer says something like "I don't let the dice decide things in my game". The most obvious one here is no character death, but it also covers anything that might negatively effect the game or more then anything the player.

That's why I love the uncertainty and randomness in a game. Anything can happen. The players are trying to save a kidnapped princess...and she is killed. The players character is the "last hidden king of all the land" pretending to be a lone ranger the whole focus of the current story...and bam, they are killed. The wizard looses their spellbook, the other character looses an animal companion, and so on.

And this goes for things like encounters and treasure: both can be much more fun at random. Yes, as a DM I do plenty of set encounters and treasure, but beyond that random ones are fun. Have a bunch of pre made encounters, and roll up something random. Same thing for treasure. And the important thing is to not follow the bumper rules: the encounter and treasure rules. The x level characters can only have x level encounter and can only have x amount of treasure. when it's random you can have the 2nd level characters encounter a 20CR great wyrm dragon and the five goblins with clubs have a bag of very valuable diamonds.

Anything can happen....

 

[DMZ2112]

None of that is true. You can have a d10000 critical chart full of interesting results. Why are you suggesting that "interesting" is the same as narrative mitigation?

I'm copying Stormonu's post and your response below for clarity.

Don't agree with the premise. Over my 40-odd years of DMing I've seen the dice destroy as often as they enhance. I've seen brilliant plans or actions utterly whomped by an unfortunate die roll at the wrong time. Dramatic combats made into speedbumps or unwinnable TPKs by one good or bad roll. Roleplayed interactions destroyed or upsurped with a random die roll. Not in a thrilling or engaging way, but in a way that utterly destroys players (or DMs) desire to interact with the fiction any more.

Dice, cards or any object of chance are tools, and like everything else they should be used with restraint and touch of good sense.

Sounds to me like less of a randomness problem and more of a lack of interesting outcomes for that randomness problem.

From where I'm sitting, this exchange looks like Stormonu saying, in short, "RNG can interfere with enjoyable play by introducing illogical failure, so it should be mitigated with DM fiat." I understood your initial argument to be that failure introduced by RNG is never illogical (because random outcomes are desirable) and therefore DM fiat should not be required.
But then you followed up with what seems to be, "When failure is illogical, reframe it in a logical way," which is a very storygame approach that D&D does not allow for out of the box. As Sigil has pointed out, D&D is a binary-outcome system. Stormonu's point is valid in a hard-coded classic TTRPG.

In the simplest terms, a whole campaign can be ended unsatisfactorily by one bad encounter where the enemies roll too many crits. If you reinterpret that combat as something other than a TPK, we're not talking about "letting the dice fall where they may," anymore.

What I said was that I liked a wide range and a lot of uncertainty in die roll results IN ORDER TO create interesting results from those die rolls.
I did not say anything about defining "interesting" there. I might define it by my whim, based on just how wackily out of average the result is. I might consult the Book Book of Crits and Fumbles.

So, I don't have an objection to the idea of critical hit or fumble tables in concept, but I fail to see how these "interesting outcomes" would mitigate Stormonu's concern while still supporting your initial argument. They are still critical hits and fumbles. If they have less devastating consequences on the narrative, you are not honoring the result on the die.

Similarly, if you are defining the consequences of a die roll by whim, you are definitely not "letting the dice fall where they may."

Why are you trying to corner the discussion into a thing you can argue against instead of just approaching it on its own terms?

You're not being super clear about your desired approach.

 

[Clint_L]

The Modern D&D play style is a lot like bumper bowling: no matter what the set story will happen and will have it's set ending no matter what.

I am around a lot of games with the younger folks in D&D Club, and they play pretty much like the game has always been played. They are always cracking up about the random turn of events that has happened because of dice rolls or someone making an unexpected decision. Sorry, I don't buy your "kids these days..." analogy.