"So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?"So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?
Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character.
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of how a DM can decide the price of failure. Again - I can just do that. The skill system doesn't help me in the slightest.
Design features can be wrong, so stating that doesn't make any ground for your argument. Whether or not someone intended the skill system to be a step worse than just making things up based on how you feel about a character doesn't change whether or not that was the result.
Because what's expected from the DM is "everything that you would have to do if there was literally no skill system at all, but now you also have to know character's stats to avoid getting the numbers wrong, and the players have probably read the skill system and formed expectations from it, so expect an entirely new set of arguments based on how bad those numbers are".
That's why people are dissatisfied. They're not doing the wrong thing - the skill system as presented in 5e is literally worse than nothing.
No. It also pretty explicitly contradicts the notion that setting a DC thst turns into auto-success is a failure either.
In the DMG they have rules on auto-success in the sections about ability checks- in play.
One of their options includes auto-success for DC 10 or less *for characters who are proficient* in non-disad situations. Obviously that sets up the "you set a dc" along with "it turns out to be no chsnce of failure" as a possible result - depending on the traits of the character doing the deed - not just the "approach".
Another one is to allow auto-success when the DC is (iirc) 5 lower than the raw ability score (?) - again resulting in DC being assigned but the character score making a roll unnecessary.
So, nah, the idea that setting a DC when a roll winds up not being necessary is somehow a sign within the system of a fsilure on the GM is not supported.