On page 242 of the Dungeon Master Guide 2014, it describes crit successes and fails as an optional rule. As optional as multiclassing and feats.

Dating back to 3rd critical skill checks in D&D suck because a lot of skills are written as pass/fail. Example: picking a lock. If we want to add criticals, a 1 breaks the lock; mostly okay, with the long acknowledged fringe problem of experts being incompetent 5% of the time. What does a natural 20 get? I adore opportunities to be creative, but there’s not a lot better than, “You did it perfectly.” A regular success earns that according to the rules, I don’t want to take it away. A speech about how cool and ninja the PC is can come off pretty cringey to me. The correct mechanical answer would be to let the 20 roll over to the next check because the PC’s in the zone or whatever. Not awful, but it doesn’t directly reward the player right when they rolled the 20, which is the occurrence we’re trying to incentivize. I’m also rewriting several rules at this point. I personally don’t mind pass/fail rolls in D&D or other games. Seeing the highest possible number on my die is inherently satisfying to me. It’s saving throws where a 20 or 1 really pulls at my heartstrings. 5e has critical saves as written and they work okay. Meanwhile, PF2e baked degrees of success into everything. On a crit fail they break the lock, on a fail they leave traces of their fruitless efforts, on a success they get one success toward opening the lock while scuffing it up a little, and on a crit success they get two successes and leave the lock looking pristine. The players don’t feel cheated when they get a normal success and scuff up the lock. The 20 has some reward for most characters. The 1 has a setback, even a reasonable setback for an expert with a +25 trying to open the DC 10 lock on Grandma’s rickety shed. I really love it.

While no individual peasant ought make it across, im pretty sure on average, one in twenty people can jump the Grand Canyon

> Many of them can be re-rolled later once you get more skill points. It calls these white checks. Specifically they'll unlock again once you level up the skill or stat they're associated to. You can also find or buy dice that'll unlock some of them. > Others are one and done unless you reload or start a new game. It calls these _red_ checks. And they're often much more fun than white checks, _especially_ when you fail them.

>You can also find or buy dice that'll unlock some of them. Those actually *do* something?

> don't let the country bumpkin make Arcana checks about monsters he's never seen Why not? It could be fun! Of course non-critical rolls would be useless, but on a critical failure they could convince the whole party that dragons can't see movement, and on a critical success they could buy mere chance figure out where its voonerables are (it's a million-to-one chance, but it might just work!)... > or let the stick figure try to punch down a wall Again, why not? _All_ rolls, they take a bit of damage; critical failure, they break their arm or hand, _and_ manage to dislodge a brick which starts a comically unlikely and _extremely_ noisy Rube Goldberg chain reaction which ends up waking up and alerting all the guards; critical success, they hit the hidden button that opens the secret door (in _another_ wall), starting a whole new subquest.

They do! [Each one](https://discoelysium.fandom.com/wiki/Dice) reopens a different set of white checks, and reduces their difficulty!

Yep, those are all great responses. I learned a lot. Funwise, it seems like a good solution would be "failure... but!" approach. So the player have at least some reward for doing the best they can even if it's not enought to clear the chalange completely.

It has the same mouthfeel as a crit, I want my wildest dreams to come true every time I see that two zero

The problem with DND¹ is that it's a wargame cosplaying as a role playing game. We're _not_ recreating historical battles. Let the players (and the DM) have fun. --- 1.— It boggles the mind that one of the early failed experiments at making role playing games (by slightly modifying the rules of pre-existing wargames) is still somehow the standard. Sure, it _was_ one of the main inspirations for the genre... but there's a good reason we're not still driving Ford Model Ts.

Once in a blue moon, an impossible check impress a scale of difficulty on the players. D&D example: a player with a high bonus attempts an Arcana check to figure out an enchantment and rolls well, up to a natural 20. I let the players have their moment of joy. Then I make a big deal of telling them they don’t have any idea what’s up with this enchantment. I really talk up how weird/complicated/confusing/impenetrable the enchantment is. I’d be trying to prompt emotions I want the players and PC to share. Frustration, inadequacy. The players viscerally know they need to try a different approach. And because I gave the check a decent chunk of game time, it has more narrative weight. A back and forth skill check is heftier in the player’s minds than a quick monologue on how the task is impossible and that trying is impossible. Instead, I let them try and they failed despite doing well. It’s a niche scenario, I admit. Most of the time just don’t ask for the check.

I don't think I've ever need more information than character level and a vague sense of whether that character/player is more or less effective in combat/social encounters than usual to make them. I definitely don't need to worry about whether they've got expertise in history, that's something they can bring up when I ask them for a history check

Fuck you, Im dm so I get to pick what does and doesnt crit >

D&D today is almost an unrecognizable game from its first incarnation in the 70's, though. I'm not really seeing the parallels to war games other than the fact that you have the option of using a battle map in combat, which is hardly unique to D&D. To borrow your analogy, no one drives the Model T today, but cars still have 4 tires and a steering wheel.

We don't do averages, just addition and subtraction

It's a game designed around math, combat, and dungeon crawling, not around roleplaying. The objective isn't to have fun roleplaying, but to roll the right numbers to maximise damage to the enemy. Any real fun comes from ignoring the rules and homebrewing. The car might have gotten a few coats of paint over the years and maybe more ergonomic seats, but it's still the same old chassis and engine underneath. There are many games built around the concept of getting the players to have fun roleplaying, but DND has never been one of them, and if it ever became one it'd no longer be DND.

I recall a Zee Bashew video that I can't seem to find that referenced a chart of how willing someone was to help when requested. The idea being the scale isn't from "I will actively hinder you" to "I will sell my estate to aid you" but rather from less then helpful to more helpful. For example, if you asked some haggard clerk about a quest the scale might be: - Critical failure, the clerk directs you to the job board for details on any job. - Failure, the clerk may point out there specific job on the board and direct you to it. - Success, the clerk tells you that the person who posted the job is staying somewhere in town. - Critical success, the clerk may share a rumor they heard in addition to telling you where the poster may be staying. Regarding a discount from a penny-pinching inn keeper, perhaps it could go: - Critical failure, payment for the entire stay is required up front. Extending your stay is not permitted. - Failure, They are not willing to lower their prices - Success, they will offer a lower price if you bundle extra services like meals, drinks, and baths. - Critical success, they will offer you the bundle rate without bundling.

Some players don't ask.

Mutants and Masterminds has (effectively) a +5 if you roll a 20, but no extra penalty for rolling a 1.

For stuff that isn't story related, and if the group is in the right frame of mind, I'd ham up 1 and 20 on social roles. Nobody is selling their estate, but they might decide they take a shine to the PC or something else that's fun. Similarly, a nat-1 could get the NPC offended, so they refuse a request grumpily or only help grudgingly. Otherwise, I think what you're saying is how I'd play it.