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

[DMZ2112]

That's a strange definition of swingy from my perspective. Swingy means uncertain.

You folks are going to get a lot further in this discussion if you agree that you all have different definitions of swing and just start talking about what people are actually writing instead of grinding your gears over who is right or wrong about the definition of swing.

It doesn't matter if it is "swingy" or not, what matters is whether or not you like it and why.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Surely then we should come up with different words to describe the things people are attaching to the word 'swing' then so we can have an actual conversation instead of arguing over definitions pointlessly?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Swingy means uncertain.

LOL it LITERALLY does not!

Uncertain means uncertain!

Swingy means it produces wild results, like the dumpstat character routinely outperforming the high-stat and skill one. D&D (and relatives) are uniquely good at this with the combination of a d20 and a binary pass/fail mechanic, and often relatively small modifiers on the roll.

There's crossover but they're not the same.

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).

Maybe it's an issue of framing the thesis. Some of the people giving you pushback, myself included, would potentially have jumped on board with a slightly different framing. For example: "Hot Take: Uncertainty Can Benefit/Improve D&D." From there, it can focus on things how elements of uncertainty and randomness - e.g., random tables, morale rolls, wandering monster checks, randomize maps, etc. - can enrich the gameplay of D&D. This could be done with respect to various versions of D&D or D&D-adjacent OSR clones. If this is a "lost art" in current strands of D&D, then how has gameplay suffered without this uncertainty and randomness?

Yeah. Exactly. Uncertainty can be fine. But swinginess ain't uncertainty, and D&D is very swingy but not very uncertain.

A good easy example of how D&D isn't very uncertain is the fact that any spell that's not targeting a being doesn't require a roll (apart from teleportation - I think that's the sole counterexample?). It just works (TM).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Meanwhile I get far more weird or ridiculous stories per session out of PbtA games, out of FitD games, or out of Cortex Plus games than I ever have out of D&D

I've seen the precise opposite, and I have a great example and effectively a control, which is switching my main D&D group to Dungeon World. Suddenly, silliness actually decreased significantly. People described stuff that made more and more sense, and was more and more in-tune with the world/setting, because the dice weren't hilariously undermining them at every turn. They weren't starting to describe an attack, then rolling a 3. Or trying to persuade and NPC, and then Mr Negative CHA mod rolls a 18 or the like.

I think the issue you may be seeing here is that the subjects of PtbA and FitD games tend to be more ridiculous than the nominal subjects of D&D games, though I cannot be sure.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

One of the reasons I and my table has moved to Savaged Pathfinder for fantasy is that uncertainty and swingyness is fun. When one has played 5e for a couple of years combat just get tedious with very predictable tactics and outcomes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The whole point of swinginess and randomness is to bring the potential of a loss condition (in this case, character death) into play. Which causes me to ask: if you can't lose, what's the point of playing?

You're conflating swinginess and uncertainty, which is just destroying the meaning of the word swingy.

Swingy means extreme results occurring with frequency. That's why people use it to describe D&D specifically.

And it's got nothing to do with "losing" or not. Also as an aside, you cannot "win" D&D so I'm slightly mystified by the idea that you can "lose" D&D lol.

With this I agree. A return to 1e-style interruptability along with a requirement to aim combat spells that aren't being cast on oneself would go (and IME do go, as I have both in my game) a long way toward sorting this.

Personally I think a fundamental redesign and introducing a casting roll that lets people stuff spells up (though I'd probably have Take 10/20 for appropriate situations) is how I'd go forward but I can see why you'd do that. It's out-of-combat spells I find particularly obnoxious here.

Dumpstat characters rolling highest on checks reflects the real-world situation where sometimes it's the dumbest guy in the room who comes up with the bright idea. And everyone missing in a round - so what? Maybe next round everyone hits. Neither are farcical in my eyes.

It happens way too often in D&D to model the (extremely rare) real-world situation, that's the issue. Because of the swinginess.

 

[Remathilis]

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 find this a bad reason for random character stats. The world is already stacked against people, I already know how to live in a world of rampant inequality. Perhaps I want to play a game where those factors are exacerbated. We don't roll a d20 to see what level you begin as (despite people coming from all different levels of experience) for example. We don't play Monopoly with each player starting with different amount of wealth and property already (despite the fact that would better model the economic advantages some people have). We assume an even playing field.

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.

And on those odd occasions you do have the protagonist that isn't gifted defying the odds, it usually comes from some external factor: wealth, connections, magic, or good luck. D&D offers no plot armor of this type though, there are no mechanics to balance low rolls with other bonuses. It is uncaring that you rolled poorly on ability scores, HP and starting wealth.

And in the end, I find that a flaw rather than something to be celebrated. I already live in a world where those who are born of privilege, be it economic or genetic, have overwhelming advantages all under the guise of a meritocracy. You're going to have to forgive me if I want the fantastical concept of equality in my silly elf game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I find this a bad reason for random character stats. The world is already stacked against people, I already know how to live in a world of rampant inequality. Perhaps I want to play a game where those factors are exacerbated. We don't roll a d20 to see what level you begin as (despite people coming from all different levels of experience) for example. We don't play Monopoly with each player starting with different amount of wealth and property already (despite the fact that would better model the economic advantages some people have). We assume an even playing field.

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.

And on those odd occasions you do have the protagonist that isn't gifted defying the odds, it usually comes from some external factor: wealth, connections, magic, or good luck. D&D offers no plot armor of this type though, there are no mechanics to balance low rolls with other bonuses. It is uncaring that you rolled poorly on ability scores, HP and starting wealth.

And in the end, I find that a flaw rather than something to be celebrated. I already live in a world where those who are born of privilege, be it economic or genetic, have overwhelming advantages all under the guise of a meritocracy. You're going to have to forgive me if I want the fantastical concept of equality in my silly elf game.

I think this is a big part of why random stats are seemingly not popular with younger players today, and indeed why most games beyond those designed in the 1970s have tended to either eschew them or limit their real-terms impact. Even OSR stuff like WWN gives you a free 14 and the mechanics serve to mitigate low stat rolls (it also has the stats have lower numerical impact).

Random stats would make a lot more sense for a "forced to survive"-type game, like Squid Game (or Paranoia), where the PCs are thrust, unwilling into a scenario, than for one where the PCs are willing adventurers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've seen the precise opposite, and I have a great example and effectively a control, which is switching my main D&D group to Dungeon World. Suddenly, silliness actually decreased significantly. People described stuff that made more and more sense, and was more and more in-tune with the world/setting, because the dice weren't hilariously undermining them at every turn. They weren't starting to describe an attack, then rolling a 3. Or trying to persuade and NPC, and then Mr Negative CHA mod rolls a 18 or the like.

I think the issue you may be seeing here is that the subjects of PtbA and FitD games tend to be more ridiculous than the nominal subjects of D&D games, though I cannot be sure.

I think that there are several issues going on here.

• I've always found character driven comedy far more interesting and far funnier than slapstick farce. Even my favourite slapstick farce, the Goes Wrong series, is very much character driven.
• PbtA games don't interrupt actions with rolling. But you can still have 10s from any character on any roll and misses from any character on any roll. We don't have "starting to describe an attack and rolling a 3" in D&D in my games - or at least we have two people in the fight and the other guys can parry. Which doesn't lead to weirdness.
• D&D is sooo slooooow by comparison.

You're conflating swinginess and uncertainty, which is just destroying the meaning of the word swingy.

Swingy means extreme results occurring with frequency. That's why people use it to describe D&D specifically.

And this is why we're disagreeing. Fundamentally extreme results almost never occur in D&D in my experience. A 3 on a to hit roll? There are two people in the fight and the other guy simply parried. Failing to land a solid attack against a foe defending themselves is not an extreme result. For that matter a crit in D&D combat isn't that extreme; it's just hit points.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And this is why we're disagreeing. Fundamentally extreme results almost never occur in D&D in my experience. A 3 on a to hit roll? There are two people in the fight and the other guy simply parried. Failing to land a solid attack against a foe defending themselves is not an extreme result. For that matter a crit in D&D combat isn't that extreme; it's just hit points.

Maybe extreme is the wrong word, then.

Unlikely-feeling results is what I'm getting at, and it's not like this is some sort of novel hot take. This has been a critique of D&D for decades.

The high RNG/swinginess of a d20 roll with low-ish modifiers being the main mechanic produces situations that feel basically silly with a much greater frequency than other games.

PtbA is almost a distraction here, I'd note, because a well-DM'd PtbA game with engaged players basically never produces "basically silly" situations, because of the way the resolution works. But D&D's resolution does it all the time.

Failing to land a solid attack against a foe defending themselves is not an extreme result.

I agree, but it does become an increasingly silly result the more it happens. Especially when the general fictional vibe of the encounter isn't one where that makes a lot of sense, which again is often the case in D&D. Double-especially when it's some highly competent warrior "whiffing" at supposedly easy enemies. There are ways to couch it to minimize the silliness but they are simply not how most people approach the game or describe their actions.

I've always found character driven comedy far more interesting and far funnier than slapstick farce. Even my favourite slapstick farce, the Goes Wrong series, is very much character driven.

Sure, and farce/slapstick is what D&D's unlikely-seeming but common results, particularly with the binary pass/fail mechanic leads to, not character-driven humour. Indeed it can severely undermine character-driven humour.