This is the way

::: spoiler Pedant mode activated Erm, ackshually, a natural 20 only increases the degree of success by one. This means, for example, if someone rolls a 20 on an attack roll, the total with modifiers is 28, and the defender's AC is 30, the attack will be bumped up from a failure to a normal success, not a critical success. :::

A jackpot is not 5% odds or a 1 in 20 chance. A natural 20 is not as rare as y'all wanna make it out to be.

Ok, but if the 20 doesn't succed, why did you let them roll in the first place?

But at the same time, if the DC is so high that no roll could succeed, then they shouldn’t be rolling for it in the first place

You're right, but I don't know most of my PCs stats. If the DC on a lock is 21, I'd expect a rogue *might* make it, but another PC who has never picked a lock wouldn't.

If you make like five skill checks per game, yes it is rare and it's way more fun to treat it like a crit success. It's not a job, it's a weekend activity that is supposed to bring joy.

I don't mean that it's ultra rare, just that it serves the same function as a jackpot - it's the best possible outcome, the thing you're always hoping will happen when you scratch the ticket, press the button or roll the dice. It's your chance to have that YOU WIN BIG moment. Setting up that mechanic and then creating situations where it doesn't apply is intentionally designing disappointment.

Cool but that's not what was said. The dude above said the game was designed in such a way that they're jackpots. They are not. Just because you don't have skill checks in your game often doesn't mean the entire game is designed a certain way.

No, a d100 serves the same function as a jackpot. Once again, a 1 in 20 chance is... Real easy to achieve. And if you're having the whole situation set up around a natural 20 being a jackpot then I really hope you're treating a natural 1 with the same rules. Otherwise it's just an extremely biased argument.

You are *technically* correct, which is the best kind of correct.

Just because a Nat 20 isn’t necessarily the cause, doesn’t mean that skill checks don’t crit.

I 90% agree. I think most of the opposition to this comes from people exhausted with habitual boundary-pushers who think that a nat 20 means they can get away with defying the laws of reality. Like, no, a nat20 persuasion does not convince the merchant to give you half his stock and all the money in the register... He would go broke and he's got a family to support, along with his own survival that your nat20 does not also convince him to stop caring about. But at the end of the day, a lot of GMs who are sick of that need to be sent the dictionary page for the word "no." The occasional use of it really does improve the quality of the game, and I'm sure plenty of players will appreciate not letting aforementioned boundry pushers continue to waste time on impossible pursuits that do nothing to move the game forward.

GURPS too

I've seen this easily solved by assuming the 20 succeedes but the DM decides how exactly. "Okay. The dragon loves you know. They realize you have their old lover's eyes. You remember this too. Old tales in your family that you thought were a joke. You are apparently related. And they do love you now." If you can't trust your players to act like adults and show some basic maturity. That's a different issue.

Maintaining the illusion? Not revealing the (impossible) DC?

Because I don't have everyone's modifier for every skill, ability, saving throw, and attack memorized off the top of my head, nor do I have magical foresight into whether or not they will choose to use abilities that would add more additional points on top of those modifiers.

You need to qualify this statement with what you believe should happen on a nat 20.

I disagree that 1% chance is a jackpot but 5% isn't. I'm using jackpot as an analogy for the emotional impact of a rarer, higher tier win mechanic - I don't think specifying a number is useful here. That feeling can happen with a range of different rarities. I'm not following your point about nat 1s, free gimmes or supply and demand. 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. The game sets up rolling 20 and critting as a win big moment. To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment. That's why I think it's bad design. And why most people don't play it as written.

I'm not speaking to how the designers intended, but at the end of the day if a 20 is a crit success on skill checks it *is* a jackpot mechanic. You could go months without getting one in game and when it happens it's absolutely like hitting the jackpot