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

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.

> 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. > 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.

> 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! ***That's not written in the game.*** A Natural 20 is only a critical hit in combat or a critical success in a death save. No where else.