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.