So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Conversely, if there is zero chance of success, then it also should not be rolled for.
If my player tried to convince the king to hand over his kingdom just like that, I would ask them what they say to the king, and then I would have the king say "no."
If I did call for a roll, the outcome doesn't need to be exactly what the player expects. I could say "roll persuasion" and on a nat 20, i could tell the player "the king bursts out laughing and says 'I like you, you've got guts'". If they failed the roll, maybe the king would've had a worse reaction to the flimsily attempted coup. But basically you as the DM decide when the players roll, AND what the roll means.
I don't have to worry about what would happen if the player rolls a nat 20 because I did not call for a roll at all, because the DM is the one who decides when it makes sense for the players to roll. If I did call for a roll, I don't have to worry about a nat 20 for an impossible outcome because the thing they're trying is impossible, I'm just having them roll to see how well they get to walk away from it.
If you're only rolling on things that there's a meaningful chance of success at, then the chance of a nat 20 auto succeeding isn't that much of a threat, since you've likely already planned for if the players succeed.
I so much agree with not allowing the roll if you as a DM dont believe it should succeed. One of the people I play with, played DnD since almost the beginning and every table hes played at a nat 20 has been a success (which is not to state it is a specific rule in any edition)... however, every table that person has played at nothing was ever trivialized because of a roll.
Also, several DM's appreciate when players find a way to "trivialize" some things because they find it amusing or entertaining... it also doesn't mean that those players get the same reward (which could have been better) than if they followed whatever the DM thought would happen.
Someone rolls a 20 and "convinces" the king to give away his kingdom, or for the Ancient Red to switch alignments and work with the party ridding the world of evil, not going to happen....These examples have been given previously and DO trivialize the game. Because what happens next is that the party decides that each is going to take a crack at the task, and the laws of probability quickly make the impossible more than possible. And as has been stated before, ONLY the DM calls for rolls. A wise DM simply avoids such a thing happening by not calling for a roll.
That is the point that was made. Don't call for a roll if a success would trivialize the game. Crits or possible crits are not a factor here.
A good DM does not have to ask for the roll as they are ready for the players to roll and they are mentally agile enough to go any direction.
The King and the dragon situations i could take a number of different ways the king could decide if you want to be the king my vizier will polymorph you for a day and we will see how you like wearing the crown I will be your cup bearer for the day. The vizier then kills the king offscreen having the player who was playing the king change back standing over the body dead king. The dragon could look at the party and Say "you are as insects to me come to me in my lair and test your mettle." The dragon makes a false lair having many evil creatures and traps set up solely to test the party and leave the party a paltry bauble as a reward. Worse yet the dragon tells other chromatic dragons and they begin messing with the party.
As much as I tried to avoid getting into this argument which usually goes nowhere, I feel it's worth it to add that even if a skill check is a critical success, it's always up to the DM to decide what that actually means in context. Xeresia was alluding to this.
If my players try to jump over a 50ft building to get away from a rampaging orc horde on their tail and they roll a nat20, I'm not letting them pull a Superman because physics still exists. What their nat20 might get them, however, is a hearty leap up to a second-storey balcony and some half cover for a round while the orcs catch up. Similarly, if my players try to lie to the criminal syndicate about something the syndicate knows can't be true and they get a nat20, the syndicate isn't going to suddenly suffer from an existential crisis on the nature of reality. What they might do, however, is be amused or impressed at the smoothness of the lie and change the dynamic of the interrogation more in the party's favor.
To me, a "critical success" for a skill check boils down to the best possible outcome that makes sense for the scenario. What the players want isn't always what they get.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is the point that was made. Don't call for a roll if a success would trivialize the game. Crits or possible crits are not a factor here.
A good DM does not have to ask for the roll as they are ready for the players to roll and they are mentally agile enough to go any direction.
The King and the dragon situations i could take a number of different ways the king could decide if you want to be the king my vizier will polymorph you for a day and we will see how you like wearing the crown I will be your cup bearer for the day. The vizier then kills the king offscreen having the player who was playing the king change back standing over the body dead king. The dragon could look at the party and Say "you are as insects to me come to me in my lair and test your mettle." The dragon makes a false lair having many evil creatures and traps set up solely to test the party and leave the party a paltry bauble as a reward. Worse yet the dragon tells other chromatic dragons and they begin messing with the party.
Do you still think the situations are trivial?
As much as I tried to avoid getting into this argument which usually goes nowhere, I feel it's worth it to add that even if a skill check is a critical success, it's always up to the DM to decide what that actually means in context. Xeresia was alluding to this.
If my players try to jump over a 50ft building to get away from a rampaging orc horde on their tail and they roll a nat20, I'm not letting them pull a Superman because physics still exists. What their nat20 might get them, however, is a hearty leap up to a second-storey balcony and some half cover for a round while the orcs catch up. Similarly, if my players try to lie to the criminal syndicate about something the syndicate knows can't be true and they get a nat20, the syndicate isn't going to suddenly suffer from an existential crisis on the nature of reality. What they might do, however, is be amused or impressed at the smoothness of the lie and change the dynamic of the interrogation more in the party's favor.
To me, a "critical success" for a skill check boils down to the best possible outcome that makes sense for the scenario. What the players want isn't always what they get.