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

[kenada]

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.

This seems to implicate some common ways of playing D&D (fudging, curated arcs/APs) more so than “story” games. I like the idea of letting the dice decide (e.g., the referee is reminded about it in my homebrew system), but I don’t think it’s a popular or common way of playing modern D&D. If the dice go the wrong way, there’s going to be an impetus to fudge or take some action (boss has drama-dependent hit points, etc) to prevent the result from messing things up. For those who like that way, the drama dice provide is more important than the randomness.

Edit: fix typo

 

[Reynard]

You can put a lettuce leaf on a burger but it doesn't make it a vegetarian meal even if it has more vegetables than a bacon double cheeseburger. And most of what you list are either house rules or things that haven't been part of D&D for about half its life (or in one case is an artifact known for breaking campaigns).

I'm not sure I understand your point. The thread thesis is me thinking randomness in D&D is good. A lot of people pushed back on that because they think the d20 isn't random enough (among other reasons). I was just pointing out that there are lots of potential random elements in D&D that don't rely on the d20 or the core mechanic.

 

[Reynard]

This seems to implicate some common ways of playing D&D (fudging, curated arcs/APs) more so than “story” games. I like the idea of letting the dice decide (e.g., the referee is reminded about it in my homebrew system), but I don’t think it’s a popular or common way of playing modern D&D. If the dice go the wrong way, there’s going to be am impetus to fudge or take some action (boss has drama-dependent hit points, etc) to prevent the result from messing things up. For those who like that way, the drama dice provide is more important than the randomness.

I think people plan too much and hold too many "story" expectations when playing and running D&D, but that's only tangentially related.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The thread thesis is me thinking randomness in D&D is good. A lot of people pushed back on that because they think the d20 isn't random enough (among other reasons). I was just pointing out that there are lots of potential random elements in D&D that don't rely on the d20 or the core mechanic.

I've been pushing back hard because D&D is possibly the least random RPG and the one with the least unexpected outcomes on my entire bookshelf. (I'm still waiting to hear which storygame you've played that has less uncertainty than D&D because literally all the non-diceless ones I play have far, far more). And there are advantages to less randomness just as there are to more (Diplomacy is a great and terrible boardgame precisely because there is so little randomness).

So I'm pushing back on two counts:

• Adding randomness to D&D takes strengths away from D&D and makes it more like other games that do what they do better. You can add a new coat of paint but the foundations like hit points are designed to take away randomness.
• House rules are not actually a part of D&D so much as they are changing D&D because what it actually does does not fit your purpose

If this thread was about how there was not enough randomness in D&D to suit you and more would be better that would be a distinctly different thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think people plan too much and hold too many "story" expectations when playing and running D&D, but that's only tangentially related.

Okay. You spoke of " 'story' games" as things clearly distinct from D&D and which, in their absolute fundamental mechanics, actually eliminate uncertainty entirely. You proceeded to praise D&D as it actually is (not just how it could potentially be), and specifically in the results of die rolls, with the implication that such things either don't happen or are framed into being superfluous in " 'story' games."

Something like half a dozen people now have cited numerous systems to you which do not do this. Posters responding with confusion and skepticism as to how you could find an absence of "interesting" dice rolls and an experience where everything is pre-planned. Particularly because several of the most prominent games marketed as "story games" (usually under the general idea of "story now" even if not by that name) explicitly make spontaneity and embracing unexpected results an aspect of the rules or policies of play (e.g. PbtA's "play to find out what happens.")

Where are these " 'story' games" which eliminate uncertainty? If D&D is special with its dice (your original argument), why is it apparently suffering from people "plan[ning] too much and hold[ing] too many 'story' expectations"?

 

[Reynard]

I've been pushing back hard because D&D is possibly the least random RPG and the one with the least unexpected outcomes on my entire bookshelf. (I'm still waiting to hear which storygame you've played that has less uncertainty than D&D because literally all the non-diceless ones I play have far, far more). And there are advantages to less randomness just as there are to more (Diplomacy is a great and terrible boardgame precisely because there is so little randomness).

So I'm pushing back on two counts:

• Adding randomness to D&D takes strengths away from D&D and makes it more like other games that do what they do better. You can add a new coat of paint but the foundations like hit points are designed to take away randomness.
• House rules are not actually a part of D&D so much as they are changing D&D because what it actually does does not fit your purpose

If this thread was about how there was not enough randomness in D&D to suit you and more would be better that would be a distinctly different thread.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertions. All of them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I fundamentally disagree with your assertions. All of them.

My first two assertions were:

• I've been pushing back hard because D&D is possibly the least random RPG and the one with the least unexpected outcomes on my entire bookshelf.
• I'm still waiting to hear which storygame you've played that has less uncertainty than D&D because literally all the non-diceless ones I play have far, far more

Now while it is possible that you have stated which storygames you've played and I just missed it I can't see how you can know enough about the contents of my bookshelf to be able to disagree with my statement about what's on it - and I certainly haven't any recollection of seeing you say what you've played. But somehow you're disagreeing.

I don't therefore think that there's any point continuing. Goodbye.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the case of the AGE System, which utilizes a 3d6 resolution system, part of the uncertainty lies in whether stunt points and how many are produced as part of the roll. And you should check out Irownsworn (free) if you think that uncertainty can't be achieved using 2d10.

Thanks for the hints. Maybe I have just not seen a game that ultilized those distribitions well.

 

[Reynard]

If D&D is special with its dice (your original argument), why is it apparently suffering from people "plan[ning] too much and hold[ing] too many 'story' expectations"?

"It" isn't suffering from those things. People who rely on them are.

One important thing to note here: I am expressing a preference and belief here. I am not declaring a truth. For me, increased uncertainty in die roll outcomes is net benefit when playing D&D (and other trad games). Unexpected results make the game better. Playing D&D with a set plot in mind -- like an AP -- or a set of rigid expectations -- "my character is going to take back the throne!" -- is less fun and creates a tension with the inherent randomness of play, which is a problem.

As to which story games I was was thinking of when I wrote the OP, the one in my mind was Scum and Villainty. I know I will get push back on that because FitD games are "play to find out" but what I mean is that the actual dice system in S&V doesn't have much range and it usually requires a series of extreme results to created something truly unexpected since it all flows from the fiction (which is itself a constraint). But I did not want to get too deeply into that discussion because this thread is about D&D and how randomness impacts it. If you want to argue of about story games, start a new thread, please.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where are these " 'story' games" which eliminate uncertainty? If D&D is special with its dice (your original argument), why is it apparently suffering from people "plan[ning] too much and hold[ing] too many 'story' expectations"?

For the record planning can be fun. One of the strengths of D&D with its low but not non-existent level of randomness, and its deliberately pre-chosen spell slots is that you can and should plan - and D&D enables that in ways that something more random and anarchic like Apocalypse World doesn't allow precisely because there is so much randomness and plans will inevitably go off the rails pretty fast. Also by providing things like weights and carrying capacity that add detail that isn't overwhelming. The only RPGs I can think of that are as good for planning as D&D are Fate (where part of the planning is racking up meta-currency so the final boss just gets a six inch high pile of chips dropped on them) and Leverage or Blades in the Dark where you have explicit flashback scenes to bring things back to plan. Oh, and GURPS, which can contain formulas involving squares of cube roots.

And this is why I say that randomness in the right place is good - and not having randomness is good, depending what you want.