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

[Reynard]

This just seems to contradict your previous points. If outcomes should be random, why are you narratively mitigating the result of a "fell where it may" open die roll? If you're going to salvage the fiction with "interesting outcomes," why bother rolling in the open? All you're doing is teaching your players the dice don't matter when it counts.

This is less an issue in storygames that focus on "failing forward," but I thought that was the very phenomenon you started the thread to argue against. Random outcomes mean sometimes the worst befalls.

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?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Because, unless you specify otherwise, limiting things only to "interesting" results is in fact limiting things. Which you've said you oppose. Hence, confusion: you seem to want to remove limitations, while still using limitations. Some elaboration is required.

 

[Reynard]

Because, unless you specify otherwise, limiting things only to "interesting" results is in fact limiting things. Which you've said you oppose. Hence, confusion: you seem to want to remove limitations, while still using limitations. Some elaboration is required.

Yes,let's interpret things is the least reasonable way possible just so we can argue on the internet.

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.

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

 

[Lanefan]

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".

Maybe not, but you might roll a natural 1 and drop the jar of peanut butter on the floor, whereupon it fails its save and you have a sticky mess to clean up with traps and hazards (i.e. broken glass) embedded in it.

That, and I maintain that just a '1' or '20' is too frequent for crits and fumbles: there needs to be a confirm roll that reduces the odds.

 

[Parmandur]

I recall in one his old Hally Fun Hour podcasts thst Mike Mearls talked a bit about how the D&D Next research showed that people loked a certain amount of risk of failure, and that there was a particular range of success that satisfied people the most in testing that 5E designers aimed for.

 

[Steampunkette]

Maybe not, but you might roll a natural 1 and drop the jar of peanut butter on the floor, whereupon it fails its save and you have a sticky mess to clean up with traps and hazards (i.e. broken glass) embedded in it.

That, and I maintain that just a '1' or '20' is too frequent for crits and fumbles: there needs to be a confirm roll that reduces the odds.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If that destroys one's desire for further interaction with the fiction then the fiction can't have been very good to begin with. Had it been any good then those involved would take the hit and find a way to move on.

Upset wins and upset losses are a large part of what makes it fun and a huge part of why we bother doing all that rolling. D&D is at its heart a game of chance and luck, and may it always be so.

 

[aco175]

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.

 

[Lanefan]

I used to agree with this point. But I've been using the standard array method of character generation for quite awhile now, and there is more than enough ways to vary characters so that none of them end up the same. Whereas rolling creates winners and losers (plus a lot of young players can get kind of "cheat-y" because they see the stakes as too high). I don't think 5e makes it any easier to game the system than any previous version of the game.

The 3e-4e-5e linear bonus structure is to blame, IMO. Much prefer the 0e-1e-2e way where the 7-14 range didn't provide any bonus (or penalty) but every number still mattered when using roll-under mechanics.

For instance, to go with an example you and I were discussing the other night, my first AD&D character had 18/94 strength. When I created him, I had no idea what that even meant, but my buddy who was helping me was freaking out because of how powerful that made my character. And he was right! Getting +2/+5 (hit/damage) from level 1 is a massive advantage over a player who starts with "only" a 17 strength (+1/+1).

Great! Your next character's best stat might be 14, so enjoy this one while it lasts!

Starting stats, as I've posted elsewhere, are a very poor indicator of a character's lifespan or future success; and I've got numbers from our games to back this up.

 

[Lanefan]

He who lives by the RNG; dies by the RNG.

Yes, exactly. That's where the luck factor comes in.