On this blog, we definitely stan Brennan Lee Mulligan and Dropout’s Dimension 20 series. This is known. One innovation that Brennan brings to his tables is in ‘rolling with emphasis’, as discussed on his new podcast, Worlds Beyond Number. This is an interesting rule, intending to add greater risk and reward to challenging rolls. Essentially, it’s supposed to represent and enhance those situations where something can go really wrong or really right, without all that much in between.
As with advantage or disadvantage, a roll with emphasis would see you would roll two dice. You would then choose the roll that is furthest from 10. The most extreme result prevails. Reddit user RAINING_DAYS has created this reference sheet to formalise and codify the rule:
The rule itself is pretty straightforward, but what are the implications?
First of all, it works better if you’re in a group that plays with critical fails (on a 1) and successes (on a 20) in non-combat rolls. This is something that is now represented in the actual rules for 5E D&D, but is something that many groups use anyway. Ultimately, you don’t need to use this rule, but it would add to the experience. Likewise, it would benefit from play that considers degrees of success or failure. i.e. succeeding by 8 would elicit more of a result than only succeeding by 1. The use of critical successes and failures in non-combat rolls seems to annoy some people, so I can understand this being met with a wee bit of hostility.
The optional suggestion to use this roll when faced with both advantage and disadvantage is not one I’d employ. This came from a suggestion on Reddit. My reasoning is that this is a roll that is great for making a roll feel big, important, and suspenseful. It should not be used frequently. It should be a big deal. Having both advantage and disadvantage on a roll is pretty common. It’s not difficult to find one’s self in that situation. Let’s keep this roll rare so as not the cheapen and diminish the experience.
The document itself is a wee bit confusing. Examples 1 and 3, for example, seem to contradict one another. It says to use it in conjunction with degrees of success, and then to use it where success or failure are the only options? I’d put this more on the person putting together the sheet than on the original source, but it’s a wee bit iffy. Also, on point 3 more generally, if success or failure is a binary choice, why am I not just sticking to a firm DC target for a normal roll?
In considering the rule as a possible homebrew addition to a table, we need to really hone in on the purpose. Let’s ignore the text of the sheet above. There are some oddities there and it was made by a fan as a reference. The core of the rule is the idea that an action can be incredibly pivotal and risky. It will either be an absolute failure or a rousing success; there’s no middle ground to be had. That’s fine. That’s delicious. The rule is intended to promote drama. Is it a glorified coin flip, as some critics have suggested? Maybe. But it’s all about narrative. Your mileage may vary, but I could certainly see this promoting drama at my tables, if used very sparingly. This should not feature in every game. This is a roll that is reserved for those real, high-pressure, risky, important moments. And that’s fine. It’s the good china. It doesn’t come out often; just for when the minister pops round for tea.
The rule is incredibly situational, a wee bit pointless in a crunchier game, but a potential source of suspense and tension in a good, narrative game. I’d love to read your thoughts on this, so in the words of Brennan himself…
No Rerolls 
1 Comment