D&D 5E You Roll Low, Nothing Happens. Can this/should this be changed?

[Nebulous]

The Dungeon World combat and action resolution system is SO different from D&D that I really don't think they're going to be that compatible without some serious house ruling. I think you'd be better off just giving the core DW rules a try and see how it clicks. I remember now that it's quite a different mechanic, the monsters don't "roll to hit you", they have attacks that deal damage based on what the PC does.

EDIT: this was a really, really, really awesome game and I'm sorry I didn't get to play it more.

 

[Rune]

Thanks, [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION].

I debated with myself whether or not to derail my post with a discussion about how DW is narrative-driven and what that means, so I'm glad you brought it up.

In DW, every single mechanical expression that happens in the game triggers off of narrative (this is one of the reasons it has no turn structure--and why it can function without it). There are broad mechanical expressions designed to catch most narrative expressions (and the GM is encouraged to make adventure/campaign-specific ones, as well).

These aren't necessary, though--they're an improv safety net, more or less. They are designed to provide the players some degree of agency in determining the type of result they will get, but all of this can be handled on the fly, if desired.

Taking clues from the narrative really makes that easy.

The 5e tweaks I posted upthread hint at how I would incorporate this in a 5e game.

To fully make it happen, I think you have to lose the round/turn structure completely.

•Opponents' available actions and reactions become specific complications for failure.

•Since you are no longer using attack rolls, you can modify the "complete failure" range of character attacks by the difference of the opponent's attack+10 minus the PC's AC.

•Because there are no longer turns, multiple attacks are meaningless. They would best be implemented as an attack routine that deals more damage, if landed.

For example, the PC makes a three-strike attack at +9 vs. a foe with AC 16.

Normally, anything less than 12 would be a complete failure. The DM decides that the foe will respond with an attack that has a +7 to hit vs. the PC's AC 18. Because 7+10-18 = -1, the "complete failure" range narrows by 1. If the PC's attack roll beats AC 16, damage for three attacks is dealt.

If the PC rolls less than 11, the PC suffers the results of the foe's attack.

Anything in between gives the player a choice: either they both get hit, or neither does.

 

[Nebulous]

The 5e tweaks I posted upthread hint at how I would incorporate this in a 5e game.

To fully make it happen, I think you have to lose the round/turn structure completely.

•Opponents' available actions and reactions become specific complications for failure.

•Since you are no longer using attack rolls, you can modify the "complete failure" range of character attacks by the difference of the opponent's attack+10 minus the PC's AC.

•Because there are no longer turns, multiple attacks are meaningless. They would best be implemented as an attack routine that deals more damage, if landed.

The amount of tweaking required I'm afraid is so extensive you might as well just play Dungeon World. I mean, yes, it can be done, but like you said, to fully implement it you have to ignore a huge part of the D&D rules.

 

[Rune]

[MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], I agree, which is why I haven't really done this stuff in 5e. I actually like 5e as-is. It's my second-favorite edition of D&D. Dungeon World being my favorite. But I'm okay with keeping them distinct.

My suggestions were provided in the context of someone offering advice to someone who is open to trying new systems, but would rather tweak D&D as a first option.

I was just showing a couple of ways it could be done. (And it's a testiment to the flexibility of the system that it can be done.)

 

[Nebulous]

@Nebulous, I agree, which is why I haven't really done this stuff in 5e. I actually like 5e as-is. It's my second-favorite edition of D&D. Dungeon World being my favorite. But I'm okay with keeping them distinct.

My suggestions were provided in the context of someone offering advice to someone who is open to trying new systems, but would rather tweak D&D as a first option.

I was just showing a couple of ways it could be done. (And it's a testament to the flexibility of the system that it can be done.)

Yeah, the tweaks would work, but I think keeping them distinct and separate and playing to the strengths of each system is the best. They both do certain things better than the other, and mixing them up would just dilute the parts they do best. This has actually made me want to play DW again, i had forgotten how much I liked it!

Edit: I didn't mean to derail this thread, sorry.

 

[Rune]

this was a really, really, really awesome game and I'm sorry I didn't get to play it more.

I haven't had a lot of luck with play-by-post games, but I'd consider running a rules-light game like DW, if you're interested. I'd want to establish a minimum weekly post requirement, though, to avoid some of the problems of the medium.

 

[Nebulous]

I haven't had a lot of luck with play-by-post games, but I'd consider running a rules-light game like DW, if you're interested. I'd want to establish a minimum weekly post requirement, though, to avoid some of the problems of the medium.

Yeah, just PM me, that might be cool.

 

[Gecko85]

If I walk up to someone in a bar (IRL), take a swing and miss, nothing is going to happen except him likely taking a swing back at me. Nothing happens on a miss for a reason: it was a miss.

 

[RangerWickett]

Binary success-failure is boring and somewhat out of tune with reality. But combat has multiple rounds, so as long as you're running the fight at a good pace, it's totally fine for some rounds to be 'failures.'

Contrast that with, say, Persuasion. By the default way of doing things, you say, "Help me, oh wise NPC," then make a Persuasion check. Maybe your modifier is great, but you screw up. Oh well, that's a failure.

But what if you use an alternate system, slightly akin to the much-maligned skill challenges of 4e? Make it work more like combat. Say that there are 5 steps of the negotiation -- figure out his personality (Insight), form a rapport (Persuasion), figure out what he wants out of the situation (Intelligence), make an offer (Persuasion), and close the deal (Persuasion). Perhaps swap one of those persuasions with Deception if you're trying to trick him, or Intimidate if you want to scare him.

At the end, how much you get depends on how well you rolled. Maybe you didn't form a great bond (failed Insight), but he trusts you (successful Persuasion) and you at least understood his interests (Intelligence success). Your initial offer kinda sucked (Persuasion failed), but you bit the bullet and agreed to a deal he'd accept (successful Persuasion). Three success out of five attempts is enough to get some aid, but not everything.

Make skills less binary. Make it work more like combat, with give and take. And, of course, narrative each step of the way, both in battle and in diplomacy. I think it's a good system.

 

[Rune]

If I walk up to someone in a bar (IRL), take a swing and miss, nothing is going to happen except him likely taking a swing back at me. Nothing happens on a miss for a reason: it was a miss.

This is only true in terms of game mechanics if you view the roll as a binary "yes/no" check. If, instead, the check represents a level of control over the situation, failure almost certainly will result in something else happening. As your example of being swung at in return illustrates.