That’s partially less of an issue with fightclub

what you believe should happen on a nat 20.

Consistency.

My point is that setting up the expectation of a moment of triumph and then diluting it with exceptions is going to create moments of disappointment at the table.

If a nat 20 is going to be a big win it should always be a big win. That’s so intuitively true that most people just play that way despite the rules.

Edit: Again, re reading this, it seems to have a way bitchier tone than I intended… I swear I’m just saying this in a confused fashion for the most part

I’m using jackpot as an analogy for the emotional impact of a rarer, higher tier win mechanic

But it’s not.

That’s the thing that I’m not following with your point. Like a Natural 20 is not a rare occurrence in the game so I don’t understand treating it like a jackpot. It’d be like treating something that happens several times a day as a really rare thing. And if they’re not that rare then I don’t understand the instant jump of going “Well then it must be a critical success because it’s a rare-but-not-really thing”. It’s just the highest number on the die that can pop up but it’s only one more than 19. It is 1 in 20. Those are pretty good odds when you’re rolling a die repeatedly.

The game sets up rolling 20 and critting as a win big moment.

In Combat and death saves. At no point in the DM guide that I recall does it say anything about a Natural 20 applying to any skill check, saving bonus or anything other than an attack roll and saving throw. I’m not aware of anything in the PHB or DM Guide (at least in 5e) that states anything else about a Natural 20 having any effect at all save for specific spells or subclasses that usually mess with the critical hit range for attacks.

To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment.

But it’s not occasional! And that’s where all of this argument instantly falls apart for me. It’s a 1 in 20 chance for a number that just says “I win”. To me as a DM it removes a significant amount of the challenge from my players if they can just roll the number that does it for them or if they’re stacking advantage and everything else. The stacking advantage and using chronomancy to force a success or diviniation or whatever at least is written in the rules and is balanced by having you use actions, spell slots or whatever else to do the thing. But simply rolling a natural 20 requires zero effort. You just roll the thing and you have a decently high chance of rolling the thing. The only way you can limit that as a DM and try to balance it then is just by limiting skill checks entirely.

I think we’re using very different ideas of game design. Are you using good design in the sense of like “tactically balanced”? I think of good game design as setting up and meeting player expectations for fun while minimizing frustration.

So is Elden Ring badly designed? That game does not meet player expectations for fun (typically) and certainly doesn’t minimize frustration for literally anyone and I say this as someone at New Game+6. For me good design is providing a challenge for players and allowing them to overcome it themselves with the tools they have available not simply rolling the number that wins everything. If someone with a 6 Charisma can roll a 20 and be able to convince whomever of whatever they wish despite the fact that they have negative modifiers then it’s not providing a challenge for them, it’s just gambling. Certain people should never be able to make certain successes. Flat out. It makes no sense for me to say that someone can do something just because they rolled a number that pops up like 5 times every session I run.

I also outright refuse the argument of “Well then why are you rolling a check a player cannot succeed” because that impedes character choice far more than if I were to allow them to do a stupid thing. Moreover, the rolls can be determined to tell the level of failure in doing something. Like if you’re trying to intimidate a king into giving you his throne and everything else on it, a natural 1 means that he takes it seriously and you’re going to be imprisoned or at least have a very strong talking to. A natural 20 means that he takes it as good natured ribbing and gives you extra favors or trusts you more or whatever because of course that was never going to work but your character got to do the thing he wanted to do, did really well and actually blundered into something else that can still help.

A natural 20 should be treated as a high roll that demonstrates that the character did something as amazingly as they are capable but only as amazingly as they are capable.

To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment.

Again, it’s not in the book. It’s not written anywhere. It’s a made up personal rule that some people believe is real but it isn’t. If I were to give in to every false expectation that a player had we’d never be able to get a campaign done. It’s not on the DM to bow to the fact they can’t read the rules. The only way you get that expectation is by either never reading the rules or not understanding it. If the clarification isn’t good enough then… that sucks but you’re not playing the game by the rules. And if you’re not playing the game by the rules then you (not you specifically, I mean the figurative player) don’t really have a right to be disappointed by people who do play by the actual rules as written. At that point its on you.

but at the end of the day if a 20 is a crit success on skill checks it is a jackpot mechanic

But it isn’t a crit success on skill checks. That’s what I’m losing my mind over lmao y’all are making it up! IT’S LITERALLY WHAT THE MEME IS ABOUT!

That’s not written in DnD. Or at least 5e which appears to be what the posted meme is alluding to. The only places in the DMs Guide or PHB where a Natural 20 is mentioned is only a critical hit in combat or a critical success in a death save. No where else save for the random odd specific ability that requires you to spend something in exchange.

To be even more pedantic: the original poster’s meme says skill checks don’t crit, not that nat 20s on skills are a critical success. Most skill checks in PF2e have a critical success tier. Thus jagermo was correct when they said that skill checks do crit in PF2e.

That being said, you are correct about how the whole tiering mechanic works and a nat 20 not always being a critical success.

Elden ring absolutely does meet player expectations - challenge is the expectation of the souls-like genre.

6 Charisma can roll a 20 and be able to convince whomever of whatever

Certain people should never be able to make certain successes

only as amazingly as they are capable

I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m not talking about how the win should look in the fiction.

It’s just that when you roll a crit but don’t get a crit, most players will get extra disappointed. That’s a fact of the human experience that no rules text will ever change.

Good design accounts for the reality of how people actually use a thing.

Good design accounts for the reality how people actually use a thing.

Disagree. People misuse stuff constantly.

I’m also falling back on my point that if someone is upset that their natural 20 doesn’t mean that they get an auto success on a skill then that’s more of a skill issue on them for just not reading the rules. TTRPGs are not simple nor are they going to hold your hand and give you everything you want. Just because a player expects something doesn’t mean they should get it nor that their expectation is based in reality. It’s a false understanding of the rules. The design is good. The players reading comprehension isn’t.

If some DMs want to lean into that, by all means, but the game isn’t badly designed just because some people make a false assumption that isn’t backed up anywhere.

Acrobatics does. Add an extra flip.

Disagree. People misuse stuff constantly.

Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.

on them for just not reading the rules

The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.

The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20.

Okay this is just getting ridiculous and I’m checking out of this conversation entirely. You’re now just going with stuff that is either completely unprovable or totally anecdotal while I’m saying “Your assumptions do not reflect reality when the rules say otherwise.” We’re not going to see eye to eye on this at all.

Like yes dude. Some things might make you thing that one thing naturally comes after another but that is why the rules are there to say that the assumption is wrong. Your argument could be applied to so many things in DnD and if it came out as the dominant stance the entire game would fall apart as there would be no balancing and people would effectively be able to do whatever they want because they assume so. “Create water inside his lungs” type nonsense.

Have a good one but this doesn’t make sense to me at all to say "It’s badly designed because it clarifies something that I would naturally assume otherwise as that is the purpose of game rules." Take care.

This is also a great way to handle it; malicious compliance/monkey paw. Makes for some humorous moments.

And yeah, if a player is constantly having to be told no, a talk may need to be had, and if it can’t be resolved, they probably need to go. It’s also a reason why Session 0’s are so important; talking out what’s expected of the campaign both on the part of the players and what the GM has in mind.

You should at least have a general idea of your PC’s skillsets. As in, don’t let the country bumpkin make Arcana checks about monsters he’s never seen, or let the stick figure try to punch down a wall. If you look at a character in a situation and think, “there’s no way that could succeed,” then they shouldn’t be making a check.

“No” needs to be said before the roll, IMO. Then If the player insists on doing something impossible anyway, just role-play the failure. With that said, actions that are in a narrow sense impossible can still have positive outcomes and if there’s the potential for that then I’d say roll for it. The proverbial dragon seduction attempt can still possibly flatter a dragon with a big ego enough to benefit the PC even if it doesn’t get the PC laid.

They do if the DM says they do, y’all get way too hard for the rules as written.

…If we fall off the rope bridge because you did a backflip I’m haunting you though.

In addition to what the others have said, I think degrees of failure are often a fun thing to introduce whether they are in the rules or not (I’ll assume D&D 5E). It might be that a 20 with your +3 athletics isn’t enough to completely leap over that huge gap, but you manage to grab a handhold a few metres below the edge. You’ll have to take a turn or two to climb up, but you’re okay. The cleric’s roll of 3 with a -1 athletics, on the other hand, sees him plummeting to the bottom and taking a heap of fall damage

They do at my table. Because it’s more fun, god damn it!

Taking a 10 is a strategic choice. You can automatically succeed because the DC is >10, or you can roll for it and try to get a critical success that comes with a random fringe bonus (such as extra XP, or making an action more permanent; like you crit a lockpicking check which just breaks the lock so it can’t be relocked) but also with the chance of critically failing (you broke the lock and now it can’t be unlocked!).

It also allows you to maybe succeed even if your stats would not let you. The DC is 50. With your bonuses, even a 20 would not beat the DC. But maybe fate intervened and you got lucky as fuck. Disco Elysium uses this a lot. Hell, there’s a whole sidequest locked behind a door that can only be opened if you roll a double 6.

I have zero regrets about my sick-ass backflip.

Why the hell not? You’re the DM. Why do you not have copies of your player’s character sheets?

D&D is that way, though. Every time you see a natural 20 for anything that isn’t an attack does not automatically succeed unless people are using homegrown, which they often are.