FWIW, inconsistency is one of the things I hate the most about the game design in Elden Ring. It does not properly communicate the actual impact of stat upgrades at different levels (e.g. 39-40 vigor is a significantly higher jump than 40-41 vigor) and enemies will have resistances or weaknesses to different damage types that often feel arbitrary/poorly communicated (e.g. the Magma Wyrm, a creature that breathes fire, is more resistant to fire than the Fire Giant; Borealis, an icy dragon that breathes ice, is nearly as resistant to fire as the Fire Giant; Hero of Zamor, an icy man that shoots ice, is weak to fire). Elden Ring's design is essentially a form of trial and error that often punishes you for choosing poorly, relying instead on metagame knowledge (patterns from previous Souls games, online discourse) to patch up its shortcomings. Fun as all hell when you know what to do, but its systems are incredibly arcane for newcomers.

That's still not clear what you mean, all of those things are typically the results of a success. Do you mean nat 20 should always succeed? Do you mean nat 20 should always be a success with extra benefits? Do you mean nat 20 should always give you a side benefit even if it fails? You need to be more clear.

No, you're misunderstanding, I'm not saying the *player*, I'm saying *the DM*. I'm not going to waste everyone's time at the table checking whether a 20 on the die could possibly succeed given their modifier when I can just ask them to make a roll. It's way quicker.

Just because I have a sense of what modifiers are and might check during encounter building doesn't mean I have them all memorized. That's genuinely like over a hundred numbers to have memorized. Plus I can look at a sheet while building an encounter and not waste anyone's time.

It's also not really designed to make combat particularly interesting, other games manage that much better. Either shorter or narratively interesting.

Ah yeah i see. A roll skips you having to sort through character sheets introducing a silent pause in the narrative to determine whether a check passively succeeds. I was a little confused by talk of character sheets because the players have them right there and they should be carbon copy with what the dm has. I meant that for checks as the DM you can save time by relying on players who you can trust to know the game and be honest, rolled or passive. I argue that a DM that asks for my stats has not yet been any less immersive for me. It takes a split second and I'll take it over railroading every time.

I never mentioned having them *memorized.* I specifically said you should have a copy of their sheets. lol

They do if it's funny. Fails too.

> Do you want me to ***check all eight of their sheets*** and all their abilities that could possibly modify their scores or just ask them to make a Blah (Foo) check check and see what the result is? It's gonna be way faster for everyone to just ask them to roll. I never said I didn't have the sheets.

I think most people would say not letting you attempt to do something because they think your character can't possibly have enough of a bonus to do it is railroading. Again, like I said, I don't have foresight to know what the bonus might be. What if the bard decides to inspire them? What if the cleric uses guidance before? What if they have some item that gives them a bonus and they haven't written that in and just add it in the fly?

I agree completely! ::: spoiler Tap for spoiler I assume you're just adding context because I don't believe dialogue has clashing ideas any longer :::

Sometimes, it's about sending a message.

Because I don't know what their max roll might be and it achieves them something, they gain knowledge that something is impossible for them.

Also grid based combat! If you want to be D&D purists, have fun but I'm glad my group isn't!

I'm just disagreeing that allowing someone to roll when a 20 might not be enough is railroading.

Yeah; you just assumed I meant to memorize it, despite my initial comment straight up asking "don't you have your PC's sheets?" ‍️

>>> why did you let them roll in the first place? >> >> Because I don't have everyone's modifier for every skill, ability, saving throw, and attack ***memorized*** off the top of my head > > ***Why the hell not?*** You're the DM. Why do you not have copies of your player's character sheets?

Oh yeah obv a 20 is an autopass. Sorry i don't think i meant to argue against that in the first place.

They crit as in get more RP if they succeed

Personally, I find "5% of the time the outcome is astoundingly good, and 5% of the time it's shockingly bad" kind of unsatisfying. Jarring, even. Picture playing darts and every 20 throws, missed the dart board completely, no matter how good you are at darts. I haven't played pf2e but I think degree of success is a much more reasonable system. I also prefer games that aren't flat probability. When you only roll one die, every outcome (on the die) is equally likely. But I think a lot of people playing DND don't really care about rules, consistency, verisimilitude, or much anything beyond "lololol and then Kevin crit his stealth check so we said the goblin king didn't see him at all as he stole the throne the goblin was sitting on!!!". Which is fine, I guess.