Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
Nothing that has been said to counter the OP has swayed me. If as a DM, a door is not meant to be opened by a skill check, then don't allow a skill check.
If you have a door with a DC where half the party can succeed and half the party can't, then what's the point of telling one player, "your character can't, but his can." If it is possible to be opened because you allow a skill check, then that Nat 20 by the weakling character is a nice roleplay opportunity to one-up the other characters. In the end, the door being opened is a possibility that was intended from the start, so who cares who opened it?
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
For every scenario someone creates to reason why a nat 20 skill check always being a success is bad, someone can come up with a scenario why the skill roll shouldn't be allowed at all.
It's also impossible the deadlift 300 kilograms if your strength is 10. You're not forcing any doors open with a 10 strength score. As a DM I'd put a minimum strength requirement on brute force skill checks for characters to even attempt to do a skill check. Also, if they have 10 minutes+ I allow a take 20, if they have less but are in a non-stressful situation, I allow a take 10. Stress situations = 1 skill check only. Each character can attempt a check.
First of, I suggest that we use another thread than this for our main thread on this topic.
Now to the post. It is not at all implied in the books that a nat20 is a success on a skill check.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
This implies that the DM is willing to go with the scenario where the skill check succeeds. So what does it matter who succeeds? If half the party has no hope of succeeding, and the other half CAN succeed if they roll well, the possibility that the check succeeds IS still a possibility. So what if a nat 20 provides a 5% chance to for someone unexpected to succeed?
It matters who succeeds because that will feed good for the player that invested in making their character good at whatever thing they're doing. It makes the player feel like that the character they've made has contributed to the success of the group.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I have trust in my players (don't have an active campaign right now), so no, I wouldn't know anything but armor, and their passive checks like passive perception, investigation and insight.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
In my games the characters shape themselves after the world, not the other way around. And yes, this means that there are some checks that they simply can't pass and they'll have to find another way around an obstacle. To me a world that is tailored to the character feels hollow and fake.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I have trust in my players (don't have an active campaign right now), so now, I wouldn't know anything but armor, and their passive checks like passive perception, investigation and insight.
I trust my players too, but I also don't make them roll for things that aren't possible for them or where it's a waste of time. My players like being told "Your History check is so versed that you would know <x>, and due to your expertise you would know <y> also." Speeds my game up. Makes my players feel good. Win/win. Equally this makes them understanding when I say "There is no chance of you doing <x> at your current abilities." or "You have never even heard of <y>".
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
In my games the characters shape themselves after the world, not the other way around. And yes, this means that there are some checks that they simply can't pass and they'll have to find another way around an obstacle. To me a world that is tailored to the character feels hollow and fake.
You misconstrue. I don't shape the world to them, I note the checks that I will need for later use so as not to slow my game down. It isn't a malicious attempt to railroad, it's just being prepared as a DM.
In hindsight I realize that Kerrec was saying that. My apologies.
[...] But it will also lead to big arguments, a character with no real knowledge of a subject I would historically allow a dice roll and, on a nat 20 give some brief info. You remember the name of the capital city of that land you know nothing of, you remember the name of a battle, you know this artifact has been fought over for centsuries but have no idea what it does. Now a player rolls a nat 20 they will be expecting to know everything “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”. [...]
In your example, if I understand correctly, the DM did provide information to the player; however, the player finds the information unsatisfactory because they expect more from rolling a natural 20. The dissatisfaction, it seems, is a result of misaligned expectation between the DM and the player on what a success entitles. If a player feels entitled to all the information on a natural 20, it is an issue with player behavior and, even using the current rule, there is nothing preventing the player from feeling this way.
If a player is going to behave in the way that you suspected, by saying, “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”, then it is an issue with player behavior as what is considered a successful outcome has always been at the full discretion of the DM. In other words, this new playtest rule shouldn't give this player any additional ammunition. Also, in my experience, players who feel like they are entitled to everything when they rolled a natural 20 is going to behave the same way regardless of what the rule states.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
If the DM doesn't know the skill scores of each character at the table, how appropriately set is the target DC anyways? I don't think I know any DM that thinks to themselves, "I want the party to have a 6.8% chance of succeeding this check and, knowing their modifiers and that they have access to guidance, this % chance translates to a DC of 23."
The target DC has always been set intuitively by DMs as oppose to an exact, calculated percentage. Therefore, giving one character in the party a 5% chance to succeed on a check that they otherwise would not have been able to, is well within the margin of error for a DC that the DM intuitively comes up with on the spot. Also, keep in mind that these scenarios don't come up often. In general, only the strongest character(s) in the party will attempt a strength check anyways.
I too think its a bad rule and the reasoning is also not ideal. Don't make the system worse just because some people play that way.
Imagine a more open-world sandbox scenario. there you have that said door with a dc of 25, which you don't intend to be opened yet, but there is a chance, but it's unlikely. under the new rules, that chance is increased a lot, unless you allow only one roll at all. the new roles take away options on how to handle situations.
Also, the range of DC 5-30 is bad.
So my rogue with +15 on thieves tools check can't beat that dc 30 lock while he could under current rules by rolling a 15+ or suddenly despite having a +15 he fails on a dc 8 lock if he rolls a 1?
and what about a check thats easy dc under 5 but a char with -1 or even -2 to that skill still normaly would have a decent chance of failure think of stealth at disadv due to armor with a dex of 8
How is that any different than the current mechanics of a melee attack with a +10 to-hit bonus attacking something like an ooze that has 8AC, and missing because of a Nat 1?
I would like to get rid of nat 1 in combat being auto fails, but in combat, it isn't as devastating in general as there tend to be more attack rolls, than skill checks per given combat/task
There appears to be a few recurring points brought up in this discussion (although these points seem to be issues about ability checks as a whole as opposed to resolving ability checks):
Players rolling for something when the DM didn't call for a roll.
Player expectation that anything is possible when they rolled a natural 20.
Pseudo-success and pseudo-failure: where the DM already determined that the outcome is a failure and a "success" in this case is not a disastrous outcome.
For points 1 and 2, this is more of a player behavior issue regarding ability checks as a whole as opposed to the new playtest rule. To foster a better gaming experience for both the DM and the players at the table, it's best to align the expectations that not everything is possible. These player behavior issues are going to occur regardless of whether the game is played under the current rule or the new playtest rule, as these issues are about expectations towards the ability check mechanism as a whole.
For point 3, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything in practice. Let's take a look at a recurring example: a player tries to seduce a dragon. The DM has already determined that this is an impossible task and that the roll to seduce the dragon is automatically a failure. Therefore, the roll that the player is making, in actuality, is for how the dragon reacts to the blasphemy of a mere mortal attempting to seduce one as great as itself. Using either the current rule or the new playtest rule, the DM can narrate, "The dragon scuffs at your attempt of seduction and seemed to take great offence. Roll to see how badly you have offended the dragon." Players who are dissatisfied with this outcome will most likely be equally offended under the current rule when their natural 20 still resulted in a failure to seduce the dragon. Again, these issues are about aligning expectations between the players and the DM more than the rules themselves.
I think the spirit behind this new playtesting rule is: don't allow for rolls when there are no way for the players to succeed.
In other words, it's about aligning expectations between the DM and the players regarding the outcome of a check. It's about having meaningful rolls and actual consequences in success or failure. I think almost all games are already played this way. I, for one, cannot recall the last time rolling a natural 20 still resulted in a failure, whether it's in a game that I am playing, or in a game that I am the DM, or a game that I am watching.
I mean that dragon one is a great example, because it happened in a game, and the player rolled a 20 and the dragon gave the party the thing they had come to get, on the proviso the character stayed as it’s new pet in the gold cage which contained the remains of another humanoid the dragon admitted they got bored of :).
What I'm learning today is that the "don't roll if it's not supposed to be possible to succeed or possible to fail" method outlined in the 5e core books isn't how a lot of people play. Maybe the OneD rules should be built around that instead of trying to correct it. Thoughts?
I think this is part of the issue with the new rules, we haven’t yet seen the context of the rest of the book. The advice given and how the game is presented. We are looking at this from a “it wouldn’t work in 5E” look when the whole feel of the game will no doubt shift.
There are also some things that don’t call for a crit failure, how do you represent a nat 1 for making a persuasion test when shopping, what makes it a crit failure? Or a nat 20 player expects to get 100% off. It will lead to arguments and disappointment as the player idea of what crit success means will differ to the DM. It will also lead to dms shutting player ideas down more often, instead of role-playing out a bad idea that won’t work dms will now say “no you can’t do it it fails” making players feel there agency is being taken.
As far as I know, there is no "critical success or critical failure" in 5e (as least not in the way that you described). Rolling a 1 on an attack roll with a bow doesn't mean you hit your ally with the arrow. I know some tables play it that way, but it is not in the rules to severely punish the players when they rolled a 1 (or vice-versa on a 20). It is up to each table to collectively decide whether rolling a 20 or a 1 should give the players more than a simple success or failure, and how extreme these extra should be.
Using your example of making a persuasion test when shopping, a success will result in a discount (maybe 10%) through bargaining. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 20 results in a 15% discount, but is in no way obligated to do so under both the current rule as well as the new playtest rule. A failure in this case would result in no discount. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 1 results in a strong negative attitude of the shopkeeper towards the party, but, again, is in no way obligated to do so.
That is the point this new version of DnD will introduce crit failures and successes on the roll of a 1 or 20 for any skill check.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Fair, but in that instance if there is beer in the cellar I would just tell them there's beer. No roll needed.
But if the wizard with a +12 to it checked they'd get a roll for the hidden door down there, or if their passive was high enough they'd find it.
I couldn't make those distinctions if I didn't know the barbarian was unlikely to find the door, or that the wizard could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
It's also impossible the deadlift 300 kilograms if your strength is 10. You're not forcing any doors open with a 10 strength score. As a DM I'd put a minimum strength requirement on brute force skill checks for characters to even attempt to do a skill check. Also, if they have 10 minutes+ I allow a take 20, if they have less but are in a non-stressful situation, I allow a take 10. Stress situations = 1 skill check only. Each character can attempt a check.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It matters who succeeds because that will feed good for the player that invested in making their character good at whatever thing they're doing. It makes the player feel like that the character they've made has contributed to the success of the group.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
Every table I have always played at or run has used this as a rule.
I was confused why in 5th it wasn't.
I'm hoping they keep doing what people are already doing anyway.
I have trust in my players (don't have an active campaign right now), so no, I wouldn't know anything but armor, and their passive checks like passive perception, investigation and insight.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
In my games the characters shape themselves after the world, not the other way around. And yes, this means that there are some checks that they simply can't pass and they'll have to find another way around an obstacle. To me a world that is tailored to the character feels hollow and fake.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I trust my players too, but I also don't make them roll for things that aren't possible for them or where it's a waste of time. My players like being told "Your History check is so versed that you would know <x>, and due to your expertise you would know <y> also." Speeds my game up. Makes my players feel good. Win/win. Equally this makes them understanding when I say "There is no chance of you doing <x> at your current abilities." or "You have never even heard of <y>".
You misconstrue. I don't shape the world to them, I note the checks that I will need for later use so as not to slow my game down. It isn't a malicious attempt to railroad, it's just being prepared as a DM.
In hindsight I realize that Kerrec was saying that. My apologies.In your example, if I understand correctly, the DM did provide information to the player; however, the player finds the information unsatisfactory because they expect more from rolling a natural 20. The dissatisfaction, it seems, is a result of misaligned expectation between the DM and the player on what a success entitles. If a player feels entitled to all the information on a natural 20, it is an issue with player behavior and, even using the current rule, there is nothing preventing the player from feeling this way.
If a player is going to behave in the way that you suspected, by saying, “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”, then it is an issue with player behavior as what is considered a successful outcome has always been at the full discretion of the DM. In other words, this new playtest rule shouldn't give this player any additional ammunition. Also, in my experience, players who feel like they are entitled to everything when they rolled a natural 20 is going to behave the same way regardless of what the rule states.
If the DM doesn't know the skill scores of each character at the table, how appropriately set is the target DC anyways? I don't think I know any DM that thinks to themselves, "I want the party to have a 6.8% chance of succeeding this check and, knowing their modifiers and that they have access to guidance, this % chance translates to a DC of 23."
The target DC has always been set intuitively by DMs as oppose to an exact, calculated percentage. Therefore, giving one character in the party a 5% chance to succeed on a check that they otherwise would not have been able to, is well within the margin of error for a DC that the DM intuitively comes up with on the spot. Also, keep in mind that these scenarios don't come up often. In general, only the strongest character(s) in the party will attempt a strength check anyways.
I would like to get rid of nat 1 in combat being auto fails, but in combat, it isn't as devastating in general as there tend to be more attack rolls, than skill checks per given combat/task
I mean that dragon one is a great example, because it happened in a game, and the player rolled a 20 and the dragon gave the party the thing they had come to get, on the proviso the character stayed as it’s new pet in the gold cage which contained the remains of another humanoid the dragon admitted they got bored of :).
I think this is part of the issue with the new rules, we haven’t yet seen the context of the rest of the book. The advice given and how the game is presented. We are looking at this from a “it wouldn’t work in 5E” look when the whole feel of the game will no doubt shift.
That is the point this new version of DnD will introduce crit failures and successes on the roll of a 1 or 20 for any skill check.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Fair, but in that instance if there is beer in the cellar I would just tell them there's beer. No roll needed.
But if the wizard with a +12 to it checked they'd get a roll for the hidden door down there, or if their passive was high enough they'd find it.
I couldn't make those distinctions if I didn't know the barbarian was unlikely to find the door, or that the wizard could.